This article is reprised from my personal homepage, which I am shutting down.

The United Nations (UN) is a socialist organization with fascist leanings. The purpose of this article is to highlight existing problems with the UN and its policies, and to lead the reader to question whether membership or support of the UN is moral, or even pragmatically desirable.

These problem areas are:

1. Property Ownership
2. Firearm Ownership
3. Corruption and Coverups
4. Intervention in Lawmaking

Property Ownership

"Fascism is a form of socialism. ... Fascism is the public ownership of all property except in name. It allows citizens to pretend that they own property, but they must use it in accordance with the wishes of the state. Since ownership means the ability to control a piece of property, the ownership is actually in the hands of the government." (The Importance Of Philosophy)

The United Nations considers private land ownership anathema; they prefer the fascist model, in which Government has ownership of land, in all but title. The land policy of the UN was set down in "Habitat I", the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements. This excerpt clearly denounces private land ownership, and embraces a socialist model:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. The provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable...." ("Report of Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements," Vancouver, 31 May - 11 June, 1976, (A/Conf.70/15), cited on "The UN and property rights")

Prima facie, the UN policy on land ownership would seem more communist than fascist. However, note recommendation D.1.a in the Habitat I report (my emphasis):

"Public ownership or effective control of land in the public interest is the single most important means of...achieving a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development whilst assuring that environmental impacts are considered."

This is, of course, the means by which the UN would like to control privately owned land; a communist-style takeover is much less subtle and much easier to combat than gradual fascist erosion. In New Zealand, we have the Resource Management Act (RMA), which almost perfectly implements the socialist / fascist intent of the UN. The following is an excerpt from a submission critiquing the RMA:

"We consider that the Resource Management Act empowers the worst violations of private property rights since the war, and achieves what war couldn't -- the virtual nationalization of land. ... The Resource Management Act completely fails to recognize private property rights, attempts instead to regulate private land as if it were commons; ..." (Submission To Ministry For The Environment)

That complaint should sound familiar - New Zealand has already implemented in law the primary recommendation of Habitat I! This shouldn't come as any surprise, as our Prime Minister is an avowed supporter of the UN, and a dedicated socialist:

"She has represented the Labour Party at congresses of the Socialist International and the Socialist International Women in 1976, 1978, 1983, and 1986, at an Asia-Pacific Socialist Organisation Conference held in Sydney in 1981, and at the Socialist International Party Leaders' Meeting in Sydney in 1991. Helen Clark was a Government delegate to the World Conference to mark the end of the United Nations Decade for Women in Nairobi in 1985. ..." (Labour Party Biography of Helen Clark)

So, it can be seen that the land ownership policy of the UN is at best socialist, at worst fascist, and that that policy is already implemented in at least one country (New Zealand). From a philosophical / moral perspective, the evil of socialism has been clearly proved - and pragmatically, socialism (including its subset, fascism) were the leading killers of the 20th century - the three main offenders (Soviet Russia, Communist China, NAZI Germany) having killed 118,093,000 of their own people between them. No possible excuse can be made for the continuation of these policies, and yet the UN persists with some of the most fundamental.

If you own property, wish to own property, or simply acknowledge the moral imperative of private property ownership - don't support the UN. Their stated goal is to nationalize all land, yours included.

Firearm Ownership

It should come as no surprise to people acquainted with fascism and socialism that the UN seeks to disarm the citizens of its member States. A desire for civilian disarmament is a characteristic of most oppressive Governments; Hitler quite accurately summed up the NAZI perspective on 'arms control' when he said:

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." (Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951), cited on Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership)

Hitler realized that a 'conquered' people, given access to arms, tend to liberate themselves. This was also recognized by Ghandi. Both these leaders realized the importance of the right to bear arms - one was an infamous oppressor and mass murderer, the other a great liberator. The former removed the right to bear arms, the latter supported it.

"Among the misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving the whole nation of arms as the blackest." (Mahatma Ghandi, cited on Firearms and Freedom - The International Scene)

Of course, defense against tyranny is only one of many legitimate uses of firearms - another is personal self-defense, which is still provided (if not guaranteed) in most states in the USA. In addition to the fact that self-defense is a human right, there exists solid evidence that self-defense with firearms is effective and safe.

So - care to guess where the UN stands on this issue? (the emphasis in the following excerpt is my own - to highlight the fact that the UN considers self-defense an illegitimate use of firearms).

It is also revealing that the UN-funded Commission on Global Governance (CGG) explicitly addressed civilian as well as international disarmament in its report entitled Our Global Neighborhood. (That much-heralded report appeared in 1995, the same year the current UN push for gun control began.) Under the chapter heading "Promoting Security," the CGG claimed: "... Militarization today ... has increasingly become a global societal phenomenon, as witnessed by the rampant acquisition and use of increasingly lethal weapons by civilians -- whether individuals seeking a means of self-defense, street gangs, criminals, political opposition groups, or terrorist organizations." That is, in the view of the CGG even civilians "seeking a means of self-defense" constitute a security threat -- just like "street gangs" or "criminals." "Every effort must be made on the local and community level as well as at the international level to ... sow the seeds of a culture of non-violence," stated the CGG. Among its recommendations: "encourage the disarmament of civilians"! (The New American - July 3, 2000, cited on Civilian Disarmament).

Of course, civilian disarmament would be worthless to oppressive Governments if disarmament applied to Government agencies as well. Needless to say, the UN is taking no steps to restrict small or light arms in the hands of Governments (including such human rights violators as Cuba, North Korea and Pakistan) - indeed, members are lobbying it against that position:

"A distinction must be made between the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and the legitimate purchase of such weapons for national security purposes, the representative of Sri Lanka told the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, as it continued its general exchange of views this afternoon." (CLOSER REGIONAL COOPERATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION STRESSED AS POSITIVE FACTORS IN CURBING SMALL ARMS PROLIFERATION)

So, if you own a firearm - for sport, hunting, self-defense, or as a collector - any support you give the UN directly imperils your right to firearm ownership and use. The UN is so philosophically and morally bankrupt that they can't (or worse, won't) distinguish between offensive and defensive force.

Corruption and Coverups

Of course, like any organization with power, the UN is prone to corruption. Unlike many other such organizations, however, the UN does react to allegations of corruption - by (metaphorically, so far) shooting the messengers. Amongst other allegations, the United Nations has been accused (with substantial corroborating evidence) of aiding massacres in Somalia and covering up the details, of theft and nepotism, and of running illegal brothels. Note that I support the legalization of prostitution as an issue of free trade and individual sovereignty, but in this case the UN is accused of coercing women into working as prostitutes.

Details of some of the accusations against the UN follow (my emphasis within), but a Google search should show up many more, including any breaking news.

• Newspaper comments on corruption within United Nations

  "After arming them to the teeth, Barre however used those "refugees" to terrorize the local population or join his government's fight against the SNM [Somali National Movement] rebels. ... Disgustingly enough, the UN chose, then, not to tell the world about how international humanitarian aid was being utilized by a dictator pursuing ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses."

• Who is Linda Shenwick?

  "In Bosnia, it was discovered that accounting procedures were so loose that the United Nations overpayments on a fuel contract amounted to $1.8 million. Then Kenyan peacekeepers stole 25,000 gallons and sold it to the Serbs. In May of '93, when the United Nations took over the operation in Somalia from us, they turned the former U.S. embassy complex into an air-conditioned fortress, complete with golf course. With a $2 million a day budget for that operation alone, it could afford it. ... At U.N. headquarters in New York City where Shenwick worked, United Nations employees make almost twice the going U.S. rate. ...

  ... Shenwick had to make a choice: keep a lid on U.N. abuse or continue to give Congress accurate information. ... Shenwick claims that she was threatened at various times, not only with the loss of her job but with the loss of her reputation, by U.N. Spokesman Jamie Rubin, Ambassadors Edward Gnehm, Richard Sklar, Herbert Gelber and Albright herself."

• Is the UN running Brothels in Bosnia?

  "Last summer, American Kathryn Bolkovac, a former Nebraska police woman, was fired from the U.N.'s International Police Task Force. Bolkovac claims it was because she spoke out against the United Nation's involvement in sex trafficking. Through interviews with 85 women coerced into sex, Bolkovac learned that U.N. officers were not only using the women for sex but also seemed to be active in the business end - for example, the forging of documents to transport young girls across national borders. ... After Bolkovac advised various U.N. officials about the sex ring, ... she was transferred to a suburb of Sarajevo, then fired. Bolkovac stated, "Those responsible ... did not want to hear about this."

• Corruption at the United Nations
  
  "Talking Points believes Mr. Seven's admission here proves the U.N. boosters wrong. The no spin truth is that the United Nations is corrupt, does not watch the billions of dollars that flow through it, and [h]as an anti- U.S. and anti-Israel agenda. ...
  
  The U.N.'s corruption led to the deaths of thousands of Iraqis, hundreds of Americans, and put the world in danger because Saddam was funding groups like Hezbollah and Hamas with the billions he stole from the U.N. oil-for-food program."

So, if you support the UN, you are supporting an organization that at best reacts with threats and dismissal when accused of immoral or illegal activity - rather than investigating those allegations. At worst, you'd be supporting an organization that assists genocide, steals, accepts bribes, funds terrorism, and coerces women into sexual slavery - and then has the unmitigated gall to host a Convention Against Corruption!

Intervention in Lawmaking

The United Nations also seeks to control the laws of member countries. In New Zealand, there has been much debate over corporal punishment of children - in particular, whether Section 59 of the Crimes Act, that provides for corporal punishment of children (e.g. smacking), but not assault causing injury should be repealed.

This should be a non-issue - parents have the right to discipline their children, so long as that discipline doesn't cause injury (either psychological or physical). Section 59 is designed to provide for that. However, UNICEF has put their oar in - lending their support to the repeal of Section 59.

Note well - an organization that claims its activity involves "raising awareness and enhancing capacities at various levels of society and in the government" is using charitable organizations to influence party-political issues in a member State. On a more personal note, this is why I have ceased donating money to UNICEF myself, which I did on a regular basis to support immunization programmes in Africa.

So, if you support the UN, expect to see your money being used to influence lawmaking in your own country - dishonestly, without any mention or explanation of that being made by the UN representatives who recruit you, or even on their own website.