You can also download the MP3.

Herbert London, president of the Hudson Institute, say the new “Superman Returns” movie is politically correct in that the man of steel has come back not to protect the American way of life but to save the world. Superman, London says in a Washington Examiner column, “has been converted into a transnationalist. I suspect that in a sequel, Superman will be employed by the United Nations.”

One might say, if that was the case, the world body might actually get something constructive done, rather than sexually abuse kids and spread AIDS through its “peacekeepers.” 

London goes on to say, “Superman is a symbol of extraordinary actions, actions-I should note-that only the United States can perform. If the day comes when American military forces are obliged to wear a U.N. insignia, the United States’ stature on the world stage will be in decline.”

Well, I’ve got news for him: that day has come. It occurred under the Clinton Administration when Army Specialist Michael New was ordered to wear a U.N. uniform, including a U.N. insignia. New was given a bad-conduct discharge for refusing to carry out this illegal and unconstitutional order. The additional tragedy is that the Bush Administration has continued the Clinton policy of putting our troops under U.N. command and in U.N. uniforms, despite the campaign pledge of George W. Bush not to do so.

Attorneys for Michael New have fought this case in the courts for over 10 years. Most recently they filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on the Fourth of July, for an en banc hearing on his recent dismissal by a three-judge panel from the same court.

“By the current Uniform Code of Military Justice,” their press release points out, “President Bill Clinton should have been either court-martialed, or impeached, for attempting to change the U.S. uniform in direct contradiction of the Army Regulations then existing.”

The Bush Administration’s continuation of the Clinton policy reflects one of the key failings of the President-his inability or unwillingness to reform federal bureaucracies in order to carry out his campaign promises.

Despite the welcome nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the world body, U.S. policy toward the U.N. is being handled largely by Nicholas Burns, the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and a Clinton Administration holdover.  He has engineered several moves to appease the anti-American majority at the U.N., such as the recent decision by the U.S. to drop insistence on a budget cap in order to force the adoption of reforms. A career senior foreign service officer, Burns was Spokesman for the Department of State and Acting Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs for Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary Madeleine Albright during the Clinton Administration.

Burns, who was recently on all of the Sunday interview shows discussing the North Korean problem, is also the architect of the Bush/Clinton Administration policy on Kosovo, which anticipates the dismemberment of Serbia and the establishment of an independent Muslim state in its province of Kosovo.

But like his policy toward the U.N., this approach is running into several problems. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that if Kosovo becomes independent, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia should similarly become independent.

In a BBC interview, Burns protested that “Kosovo is unique.” Because a “major international war was fought there,” he insists, “Kosovo’s sovereignty needs to be determined and agreed by all of us in the international community.”

But that war, waged by the Clinton Administration, was never approved either by the U.S. Congress or the U.N.!

Letting the “international community” decide the national sovereignty of a country under these circumstances is not only unique but unprecedented and dangerous. This kind of diplomatic doublespeak opens the door for more U.N. authority and control over the nations of the world.

Notwithstanding the failure of the U.N. force in Lebanon, U.N. chief Kofi Anan is now calling for another U.N.-backed force to help restore Lebanon’s sovereignty. It demonstrates how the world body exploits its own failures to grow in size and influence.

Will Rice back a U.N. role in Lebanon? She should make a break with Burns.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author