As protests and looting continue in Ferguson, Missouri, following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is demanding that local law enforcement adhere to what his office cryptically referred to as “international standards.” The latest UN meddling in U.S. affairs concerning local and state government is part of an accelerating trend, sparking alarm among critics of the dictator-dominated global outfit and advocates of national sovereignty. Those tempted to seek UN-inspired “international standards” for local American police forces should be careful what they wish for.
Of course, the Obama administration has also been inappropriately injecting itself into the Ferguson saga. The president, who has played a key role in showering military weapons on police departments across America, even took a break from his vacation to slam local law enforcement and its response to the unrest. Now, Attorney General Eric Holder — currently in criminal contempt of Congress for arming Mexican drug cartels and then trying to cover it up by lying to Congress — plans to “oversee” the unconstitutional federal meddling.
Perhaps following Obama’s lead, the UN injected itself into Ferguson’s affairs on Monday, August 18. “The secretary general is aware that U.S. federal authorities have announced an investigation into the killing of Michael Brown,” a spokesman for Ban’s office said during a press conference, reading from a prepared statement. “He hopes local and federal investigations will shed full light on the killing and that justice will be done.” So-called “justice” in UN speak, of course, means something very different than it does in the United States.
Next, the UN chief offered some unsolicited advice for local police and authorities dealing with the situation in Ferguson. “The secretary general calls on the authorities to ensure that the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are protected,” the spokesman said. “He calls on all to exercise restraint, [and] for law enforcement officials to abide by U.S. and international standards [sic] in dealing with demonstrators.” It was not immediately clear what sort of “international standards” the UN boss had in mind, though there are some strong indications.
The ruthless Communist regime ruling mainland China, for example, which sits on both the UN Security Council and the UN “Human Rights Council,” regularly responds to peaceful protests with mass murder, brutalization, torture, forced disappearances, and re-education camps. In Tienanmen Square, much of the world watched in horror as those “international standards” were broadcasted around the globe in 1989. Amid that full-scale massacre, the UN boss at the time noted that the global outfit’s charter prohibits interference in the internal affairs of member regimes. The charter has not been changed since then.
The Russian government, also on the Security Council and the self-styled UN “Human Right Council,” is similarly notorious for abusing protesters and even murdering journalists who expose the abuse. Other autocratic member regimes on the UN human-rights outfit — those ruling Communist Cuba and Islamist Saudi Arabia, for example — have similar ways of dealing with protests. Whether those represent the “international standards” Ban was referring to was not revealed.
In reality, though, the UN’s own “international standards” are as different as night and day from “U.S. standards.” Consider, for example, the comprehensive listing of government-granted privileges established in the UN’s so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In Article 29, the controversial document claims that purported “rights and freedoms” are “subject” to “such limitations as are determined by law.” It also claims rights “may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”
Contrast that with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects pre-existing rights — endowed to all people by their Creator — from government infringement. “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it reads. Instead of privileges granted by government and limited by law, then, as in the UN’s version of pseudo-“rights,” in the United States, actual rights are granted by God, and Congress is explicitly prohibited from making laws abridging those rights.
According to media reports, the situation in Ferguson appears to be the talk of the town in Geneva, where UN member regimes and so-called “non-governmental organizations” are gathered for a taxpayer-funded UN summit on racial equality. Among other Americans at the confab were relatives of Trayvon Martin, the teenager who was fatally shot by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman following a fight. The UN’s discredited “human rights” bureaucrats jumped all over the case, only to be left looking like fools — especially after Zimmerman was found not guilty by a jury.
Now, self-styled activists — others might call them “useful idiots” — are hoping the dictator-dominated UN will get involved in Ferguson. “Clearly this issue is resonating here ... and they knew about it before we got here,” explained Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington Bureau, who is in Geneva at the moment. The story about developments in Ferguson “continues to run in circulation over and over again [on Geneva television]. The world is watching what is happening in Ferguson, Missouri.” Apparently the NAACP and other U.S. groups are currently complaining to the UN about a wide range of racial issues in the United States, the first majority white nation in history to elect a black president.
As The New American has documented extensively, the latest UN meddling in U.S. affairs follows an increasingly aggressive campaign by the global outfit to influence domestic American policy — from the federal level down to local government. Less than two months ago, for example, the UN paraded swarms of self-styled “human rights experts” from the dictator-dominated outfit demanding that officials in Detroit adhere to what they referred to as “international law.” Before that, the UN was meddling in the Trayvon Martin case, demanding investigations even while at least three were ongoing.
Beyond local government issues, the UN is increasingly seeking to control state and federal policy as well, generally acting as if the U.S. Constitution does not or should not exist. Earlier this year, for instance, the UN released a “human rights” screed blasting the gun rights of Americans, the U.S. constitutional system of self-government, laws on immigration, protections for self-defense, discipline of children, and more. Communist autocracies like the one ruling Mozambique had shorter reports.
Before that, the UN was demanding that Obama “nullify” state governments’ “stand your ground” laws protecting self-defense rights. The UN drug czar has also been demanding that Obama overturn the wishes of voters in Colorado and Washington State, who ended marijuana prohibition in defiance of unconstitutional federal and UN demands. The UN also lashed out at the name of a U.S. sports team while demanding that the United States surrender Mount Rushmore to Indians.
It is not just the American Constitution and system of government that is under assault by legions of UN bureaucrats. In recent years, fringe activists working for the UN posing as “human rights experts” with bombastic titles such as “special rapporteurs” have lashed out at many of the freest nations on Earth. Canada was attacked for low taxes and not enough welfare. The United Kingdom came under UN fire for not providing nice enough houses to welfare recipients. Switzerland was criticized for having too many stay-at-home moms. And on it goes, all while the UN's own “peacekeeping” troops rape, murder, and terrorize civilians around the world.
As civilized Western nations come under sustained UN attack for imaginary “human rights” violations, autocrats are the ones doing much of the accusing. Genocidal maniacs, Islamist tyrants, communist dictators, and mass murderers continue to serve openly on the “Human Rights Council.” Agents of those regimes also lead major UN agencies. At the same time, with Obama's full support, the UN is rapidly accumulating illegitimate powers, on the road, ultimately, toward what it calls “global governance.”
Americans tempted to ask the UN or even the federal government to get involved in state and local issues ought to think carefully about the consequences. Most of the UN’s member regimes are notorious for actual human rights abuses. The UN's military forces, called “peacekeepers” in a perfect example of Orwellian thinking, are marauding all over the world while engaged in heinous abuses — especially against Africans and their descendants.
The federal government, meanwhile, has a long and growing track record of creating the problems it purports to “solve” with its swarms of militarized officials and unconstitutional activities. Even the militarization of local police in Ferguson — one of the issues that has prompted some of the loudest outrage — is the handiwork of the federal government and the Obama administration.
For freedom, prosperity, and self-government to survive in the long term, Americans must demand that Congress withdraw from the autocrat-run UN and rein in the out-of-control Obama administration. Getting the U.S. out of the UN — and there is already legislation pending in Congress to do that — would set the globalist establishment’s plans back by decades. Even just de-funding the global circus would be a good start, and that can be accomplished by the GOP-controlled House on its own. Perhaps all of the recent UN meddling in U.S. affairs can serve as a catalyst for finally getting the U.S. out of the UN for good.
Photo of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon: AP Images
Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at