Natl Review

U.N. Non Grata Just say “No” to the United Nations.

By Neil Seeman, NRO associate editor June 29, 2001 8:45 a.m. Two small towns in Utah hope to break the spine of the United Nations. Thanks to ordinances proposed this week, the people of La Verkin (pop. 3,392) and Virgin (pop. 394), may soon become the first folks in the modern world to be freed from the U.N.'s vast tentacles.

"We've been pushed far enough, and long enough," La Verkin Mayor Dan Howard told the Salt Lake Tribune this week. "We're tired of marching to [the U.N.] agenda. Maybe now we can start to march on our own agenda. Maybe La Verkin is the crucible to get the rest of the cities and the national government to listen."

It turns out this is the first time any city in the world has declared the U.N. non grata.

The proposed ordinances create a "United Nations-free zone" that would ban aiding the organization via town funds, displaying any U.N. symbols on town property, and would prohibit the "involuntary servitude" of any resident in U.N. peacekeeping activities.

La Verkin Councilman Al Snow, who helped draft the ordinance, says the city's real aim is to issue a bold statement to Washington: The United Nations should not direct U.S. foreign policy. Says Snow: "The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and not some [U.N.] treaty that tries to supersede it."

Inspiration for the ordinance came from Michael New, an Army medic from Texas who was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to wear a U.N. beret and insignia whilst peacekeeping in Macedonia. New's father, Daniel New, launched the proposed ordinance earlier this week.

Those who support the international body would still be free to do so. Only they would be required to post signs that say, "United Nations work conducted here." La Verkin has scheduled a special Fourth of July meeting in which it is expected to adopt the ordinance.

If these ordinances trigger similar laws in other jurisdictions, their effect may be more than symbolic. The U.N.'s international authority in domestic law is itself, after all, largely symbolic; "international law" set forth in U.N. resolutions and treaties enjoys status in domestic courts only to the extent that states pay homage to the U.N.'s authority. Should states or "sub-state actors" — in the lingo of international lawyers — eschew that authority, "international law" falls like a deck of cards.

At least one nation, Australia, has grasped this concept. Last year, the Aussies rebuffed the U.N.'s depredations into their affairs. The Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, declared that the U.N. had no right to meddle under the rubric of "human rights" in Australia's domestic politics, on such matters as mandatory sentencing, aboriginal health, and women's rights. If enough nations follow Australia's lead, U.N. directives will be the international-law equivalent of dead letters. Who knows? Perhaps some day Congress will be prompted to employ Utah-style robustness to defend America's national sovereignty.

-- Anonymous, June 29, 2001