|Cut Off Handouts to the UN
The Clinton Administration is trying to bamboozle
Congress to pony up a extra billion dollars in handouts to
the United Nations. Congress should assert its
appropriations authority and say no. The notion that we
"owe" the UN $1.2 billion (some say $1.7 billion) in
back assessments is ridiculous. For years, we've been
paying 25% of the budget while being treated like a Third
World nonentity. Sob stories about the UN's "financial
crisis" deserve a belly laugh. The UN's cash shortage is
caused by its corrupt and extravagant spending, not by a
backsliding or penurious United States.
The general annual UN budget has expanded from
$20 million and 1,500 employees in 1945, to $10 billion
and 50,000 employees today. Of this, U.S. taxpayers are
contributing an estimated $4 billion a year.
Although we have the power of the Security Council
veto, for the most part the United States has played the
role of just one vote among 185 in the General Assembly.
The other countries even ganged up and voted the U.S.
off of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
Budgetary Questions which makes up the UN budgets.
The United States is assessed 25% of the UN's general
budget, double that of any other nation. Japan is assessed
12.45%, the United Kingdom 8.93%, and more than 90
countries only 0.01% each.
When he was Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali endorsed the notion that the UN should impose
global taxes in order to relieve the UN of any
accountability for contributions from its member nations.
The first thing Madeleine Albright should do is demand
that the new UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan,
repudiate that impudent suggestion.
In addition, the UN "peacekeeping" budget has
expanded from $700 million in 1990 to $3.5 billion
today. The UN assesses the United States 31.7% of the
"peacekeeping" budget (U.S. law now limits us to 25%),
compared with 8.5% for Russia, 6.3% for the United
Kingdom, and 7.6% for France, all of whom have more
direct interest in the various UN expeditions than we
The Clinton Administration, having succeeded in
dumping Boutros-Ghali, will now claim that we should
pay our "peacekeeping arrears" so that we can demand
fiscal reform. That puts the cart before the horse; if we
fork over the cash first, we'll never get reform. The
United States is the only country that really wants UN
reform. Most of the others are not spending their own
money, they are spending ours, and their overpaid UN
representatives feel threatened by American ideas of
The arrogant UN bureaucrats didn't even pay lip
service to reform until Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
introduced his bill called the United Nations Withdrawal
Act. It would require the United States to withdraw
from the UN by the year 2000. One of the best things
President Reagan did was to pull the United States out of
the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), which was the most corrupt
UN agency. It would be great if Congress would
immediately terminate all funding for a lot of other
useless UN groups, particularly the UN Conference on
Trade and Development and the UN Development
Congress has repeatedly tried to force the UN to
impose fiscal discipline on itself, but all our efforts have
failed. We shouldn't give the UN any more money until
the UN makes major cuts in its colossal bureaucracy,
which is now spread around 70 agencies doing mostly
useless paper-pushing. For starters, Congress should
reduce our contribution to 20 percent of the UN budget,
and we should withhold all payments until the staff is
reduced by at least 10 percent. That's the only language
the UN understands.
Even more important is dealing with UN mischief.
Congress should expose the fakery of UN participation
in "peacekeeping" expeditions to places where there is
no peace to keep. Under Boutros-Ghali, UN
"peacekeepers" were sent to intervene in civil wars and
to carry out a nebulous new activity called nation-building. Of course, such projects are expensive and
always involve more missions, more time, more risk, and
more troops than anticipated.
But the worst part is that they involve U.S. troops
and U.S. risk in faraway places where we have no
national security interest. Congress should make it clear
that U.S. armed services are not UN policemen or a UN
foreign legion, and will be sent only on missions
required by the U.S. national interest and voted by
Congress should reassert its constitutional authority
over the U.S. armed services, making it clear that we will
not engage in any UN military action disguised as
"peacekeeping," that U.S. troops will never serve in UN
uniform, or under UN command or UN rules of
engagement, and that no U.S. ground troops will be
committed for any UN enterprise.
UN Treaties Are All Bad News
President Clinton called a special news conference
last month to announce that he finds it "an
embarrassment" that the U.S. Senate has not ratified the
United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women. He said that,
although 130 other nations have ratified this treaty, the
United States hasn't, and "there is no excuse for this
situation to continue."
A treaty to enforce uniform rules for us and 130
other nations, under the supervision of UN busybody
bureaucrats, could only diminish the rights and benefits
now enjoyed by American women, who are the most
fortunate class of people on the face of the earth.
Ratification of this UN Treaty on Discrimination Against
Women would be craven kowtowing to the radical
feminists, exceeded only by its unlimited capacity for
legal mischief. And it would be a massive interference
with U.S. laws as well as with our federal-state balance
Article 1 purports to abolish discrimination against
women "in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil
or any other field." Private relationships should be none
of our government's business, much less the business of
the United Nations.
Article 2 reiterates that the treaty would "eliminate
discrimination against women by any person,
organization or enterprise," including "customs and
practices." No human behavior is beyond the purview of
this impudent UN document. The treaty would mandate
the longtime feminist goal of total sexual integration in
the military. It would turn over to the United Nations
all decisions about military personnel, including the
assignment of women to ground combat.
Article 3 would require us to pass new federal laws
not only in political but also in "social, economic and
Article 5 would require us "to modify the social and
cultural patterns of conduct of men and women" and to
give assurances that we are following UN dictates about
Article 10 would make it a federal responsibility to
ensure "the elimination of any stereotyped concept of
the roles of men and women at all levels and in all forms
of education . . . by the revision of textbooks ... and
teaching methods." Unable to persuade Americans
voluntarily to go along with their censorship attempts,
the feminists are trying to get the UN to do this job for
Article 11 would chain us to the feminist goal that
wages should be paid on subjective notions of "equal
value" rather than on objective standards of equal work.
It would also require the federal government to establish
"a network of child-care facilities."
Article 16 would require us to allow women "to
decide freely and responsibly on the number and
spacing of their children." In feminist theory, this
means that the United States would have to allow
abortions at any time for any reason. On the other hand,
this language does not protect Chinese women
victimized by their government's policy of forced
abortions. China takes the position that it is not
"responsible" for a woman to bear more than one child.
Article 16 also levels a broadside attack on states'
rights. It would obligate the federal government to take
over all family law, including marriage, divorce, child
custody, and property.
To monitor the "progress" made under this treaty,
Article 17 sets up a Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination Against Women consisting of 23
"experts." No doubt that means "experts" in feminist
ideology, probably as certified by Hillary Rodham
Clinton and/or Bella Abzug.
The State Department memo that explains the treaty,
which was written by the late Edmund S. Muskie,
candidly admits that it applies "to private organizations
and areas of personal conduct not covered by U.S. law."
It also admits that the treaty completely fails to take into
account "the division of authority between the state and
federal governments in the United States."
President Jimmy Carter signed this terrible treaty in
1980, and ever since the Senate has had the good
judgment to refuse to ratify it. We trust the Senate will
retain its sanity on this issue, despite Mr. Clinton's
embarrassment. (More information about this UN Treaty is
available in the Phyllis Schlafly Report of September 1990.)
Another Bad Treaty: Chemical Weapons
The U.S. Senate showed good judgment last year in
refusing to ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention
(CWC), a treaty that purports to ban chemical weapons
and forbid their production, stockpiling, and use.
Contrary to its announced purpose, this foolish treaty
would increase, not eliminate, the risk of chemical
weapons use, and would seriously damage U.S. national
security interests. The Senate should continue to reject
this bad treaty.
Bad guys are deterred by force, the threat of force, or
by their cold calculation that the costs of evil behavior
are not worth the risk. Many dangerous countries, such
as Libya, Syria, Iraq and North Korea, have not signed
the CWC and would not be deterred by pieces of paper.
China and Iran, which have significant chemical
weapons programs, are unlikely to comply. Of particular
concern is Russia, which has the largest arsenal of
chemical weapons; the actions and statements of its
military leaders confirm that Russia would not comply at
Even though the CWC would not rid the world of
chemical weapons, it would impose a terrible regulatory
and reporting burden on every U.S. company that
produces, processes, or consumes a scheduled chemical.
The CWC would affect U.S. firms that make dyes and
pigments, insecticides, pharmaceuticals, ceramics, nylon,
paint and varnish, electronics, textiles, and soap and
The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
estimates that 2,175 U.S. companies would be saddled
with reporting requirements and data declarations; others
estimate that the burden will fall on 10,000 U.S.
production facilities. This time-consuming reporting
could, in turn, produce additional government oversight
and regulation by agencies such as OSHA, EPA, and
No previous treaty has ever subjected U.S. private
industry to international inspection. CWC is the New
World Order closing in on American business. The
process of allowing teams of foreigners to investigate,
inspect and challenge all facets of private U.S. businesses
could open them up to industrial espionage and the theft
of their proprietary information. Forcing them to spend
unnecessary funds to hire more people to fill out more
government forms, and submit to routine inspections,
would reduce their ability to compete in world markets.
Of course, the CWC would give birth to a new
international bureaucracy. The Organization for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is already
headquartered in The Hague with a Conference of State
Parties, an Executive Council, and a Technical
Secretariat with a hundred pages of verification
Every time we hear trendy slogans such as "global
village," "world economy," or "international
cooperation," Americans should remember that other
nations have no familiarity with or understanding of our
Bill of Rights or our federal structure of government
with separate state laws. Treaties are customarily
written as though all power to make and fulfill
international commitments resides in the head of state
who signs the document.
If the CWC goes into effect, what happens to our
Fourth Amendment rights? The CWC's Technical
Secretariat, without a warrant, would be empowered to
inspect virtually everything within the premises,
including records, files, papers, processes, controls,
structures and vehicles, and to interrogate on-site
Under CWC, what happens to our First Amendment
rights? Freedom of Information requests would not be
permitted under the proposed CWC implementing
legislation, so Americans would have fewer rights under
this treaty than if a U.S. agency, such as the FBI,
The CWC is unverifiable and unenforceable.
Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified on June
23, 1994 that "the chemical weapons problem is so
difficult from an intelligence perspective, that I cannot
state that we have high confidence in our ability to
detect noncompliance, especially on a small scale."
In closed societies, factories making fertilizer,
pharmaceuticals, or plastics can easily cover up their
production of chemical weapons. After receiving
notification of a challenge, a facility has six days to hide
the evidence before inspectors are admitted. Small
amounts of concealed chemical weapons can be
militarily very significant. Used against critical military
targets, chemical weapons can have dramatic
To paraphrase a popular bumper strip, when
chemical weapons are outlawed, only outlaw
governments will have chemical weapons. Our World
War II experience shows that the best way for civilized
countries to prevent the use of chemical weapons is for
the good guys to have their own deterrent arsenals of
Alger Hiss Fallout on Politics
The 1950 conviction of Alger Hiss for perjury in
denying that he was a Communist spy was a seminal
event in American politics. It is difficult to name any
other trial that had such a widespread effect on American
politics, even including the convictions of atomic bomb
spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
Alger Hiss was the quintessential Establishment Man:
Harvard Law School, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, erudite, good looking and perfectly
tailored, with a glorious resume and fervent testimonials
from everyone who was important.
His social friends did not suspect, indeed found it
incredible, that Hiss could have been a Jekyll-and-Hyde
double persona, living half his life underground where he
carried out traitorous missions. When the facts were
spread on the table, one of his friends told me in shock,
"If Alger could be a Communist, anyone could be."
Indeed, anyone could. In those years, many people
who had as elegant an image as Hiss were secret
Communists. The handsome husband of my best friend
in college turned out to be a secret Communist, a fact
which my friend learned only when the FBI told her after
the Party ordered the husband to get a divorce and marry
a Party member.
Good looking men and women leading double lives
held jobs throughout the Roosevelt and Truman
Administrations in the 1930s and 1940s. When the House
Committee on Un-American Activities exposed this
Communist virus, the liberals in and out of government,
especially in the media, counterattacked against the anti-Communists with a frightening ferocity.
The culpability of the liberals in standing cheek-to-jowl with the Communists was summed up by the founder
and first chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Martin Dies, in his book Martin Dies' Story. He wrote: "Without exception, year in and
year out, the American Liberals have defended, protected,
encouraged, and aided the Communists, both in the
United States and abroad." Dies said that there is a
"sympathetic tie between the ultra-liberals and the
Communists. Actually, the ultra-liberals have always
been socialists at heart."
Because the Rooseveltian liberals were soulmates
with the socialists and Communists, they closed ranks to
defend Alger Hiss, and continued to defend him year after
year, even after he exhausted his appeals and spent four
years in prison, and even after all subsequent revelations
confirmed his guilt beyond quibble. On the other hand,
Hiss's conviction proved that treachery and subversion
were real, and, to the anti-Communists, America's honor
was at stake.
Alger Hiss wasn't merely a middle-level bureaucrat
who turned over classified documents to the Soviet
espionage network. He was the number-two man in
Franklin D. Roosevelt's State Department and a key
player in our foreign policy and relations with the Soviet
Hiss was the principal author of the United Nations
Charter, which was drafted at the Dumbarton Oaks
Conference. Hiss presided as the UN's first Secretary
General at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945,
where we learned that a secret agreement had been made
at the Yalta Conference the preceding February, giving
the Soviet Union three votes in the UN, while every other
nation has only one.
Poland, the first country to resist Hitler and
supposedly the reason why the West entered World War
II, was barred from the UN until the legitimate anti-Communist government of Mikolajczyk was replaced by
Communist stooges from Moscow. As this was not
accomplished until the fall of 1945, Poland's seat was
empty in San Francisco.
At the Yalta Conference, Alger Hiss had been the
chief aide to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius. In the
telephone system set up for the U.S. delegation,
Roosevelt was #1, Stettinius #2, and Hiss #3, and Hiss's
hovering presence is apparent from the news
Most of the obituaries on Alger Hiss since his death
on November 15 were encrusted with layers of liberal
bias. The New York Times headlined the event as
"Alger Hiss, Divisive Icon of Cold War, Dies at 92."
That headline is misleading. Alger Hiss was an icon of
the liberals in their war against the anti-Communists. He
was the personification of the Communist chic which
patriots believed should be removed from our
The definitive account of the Alger Hiss story was
written by Allen Weinstein in 1978. He started out as a
liberal determined to prove Hiss's innocence by getting
access to documents under the Freedom of Information
Act. The documents convinced Weinstein that Hiss was
guilty, so he entitled his book Perjury.
Hiss's guilt was reconfirmed in 1993 by the release
of the files of the Interior Ministry in Budapest, and
again in 1996 by the release of the Venona papers. The
Venona papers are hundreds of messages sent by Soviet
agents between Washington and Moscow which had been
decrypted and translated by our National Security
The Alger Hiss story proves that traitors made policy
at the highest levels in our government during the 1930s
and 1940s. The Alger Hiss story validates the
courageous battle waged by anti-Communists to rout
traitors out of our government.