Transforming Charity

This amazing collection of essays makes a tremendous contribution to the world of international politics. It makes ever more clear why the United States should always bear in mind that democracy comes first. The United Nations pits democracies against each other and has a negative effect on US foreign policy and freedom all over the world. I particularly liked the opening chapter by Anne Bayefsky and the incredibly insightful poll by Frank Luntz in the annex which provides a very enlightening view of the UN's inability to fight the war on terrorism and contribute to international poeace and security. The book is beautifully illustrated. Its essays are from a powerful conference that mmade a tremendous impact for posterity. A very good education on the UN!!

The contributors in this small volume have done a good job. They have shown how far the United Nations has strayed from its original goals. They have shown the UN to be a perverse institution that is incapable of reform. And they have a recommendation, namely to work towards creating some sort of "United Democratic Nations." Let's look at this idea for a minute. Why would a United Democratic Nations work any better than the UN? Well, it might not. But a key aspect could be the concept of a "coalition of the willing." That's what Herbert London discusses at the start of the book. And this coalition could begin with just a few nations, say the US, Canada, the UK, Japan, and Australia. I think London is on the right track, but I still do not fully agree. After all, the problem with the UN is that it got itself a good name and then became perverse. It was not only unable to solve new problems; it became a contributor to them. I see the solution as something else: have no standing organization at all. If problems arise, come up with ad hoc coalitions of the willing who are determined to solve them and then disband. Most of the work among nations can be performed individually or bilaterally, and the rest can be done without having a prior established organization. I think the lesson of the UN is that such organizations make matters worse. Many of the contributors show that the UN has been corrupt, ineffective, and wasteful. And some deplore the fact that we Americans pay for so much of it. But I think this misses the point. Even if the US stopped paying for any of the UN, and even if the UN stopped being corrupt somehow, it would still be perverse and irresponsible, and it would still support the some of the most aggressive and counterproductive nations and gangs. I do not wish to see the UN "reform" in such a manner. Instead, I wish to see it outlawed. That suggestion may seem outrageous and extreme on my part. But my answer is that one can not keep selling poison as food indefinitely: eventually people will quit buying it, one way or another. If civilization is destroyed, the UN will go with it. If civilization survives, sooner or later the UN will vanish. And I hope it is sooner. We won't miss it. Some of the contributors make a few points that are worth special notice. Anne Bayefsky, a human rights expert who truly does support human rights for all, says that it is tragic that the UN is against us, "but the tragedy will be far greater if we refuse to say: enough." Ayann Hirsi Ali says that the UN "has been outright complicit in a great many conflicts and human rights abuses." Natan Sharansky says that "moral clarity is the key" and shows how one can put pressure on nations by adopting a moral stance. Claudia Rosett states that the model that best explains the UN is the Soviet Union, adding that if one spends enough money, some of it may accidentally be used to accomplish a few good things. Of course, it is bett