Last month in his widely publicized maiden speech, One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts called on Australia to leave the United Nations, whom he described as ‘unelected swill’
As along with his party’s differing perspectives on immigration, Islam and trade, so too has One Nation brought along unorthodox views in the field of foreign policy, leaving the Liberal- Labor establishment in a bewildered state.
Besides the contrived media kerfuffle at these calls, what merits are there really, to pursuing what Senator Roberts described as an ‘Aus- exit’? And what are the potential risks?
There are many arguments for following the path advocated by Senator Roberts given the issues existing in the UN. Further, as is the case in debates regarding other international organisations such as the EU, they often boil down to the issue of sovereignty.
These concerns over national sovereignty and future potential UN incursions into our domestic sphere, are often based on a real and legitimate set of circumstances.
This is seen as instead of the UN acting upon its original intentions, the organisation has developed into cover for the world’s worst human rights abusers, including Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea, who are all granted mandates to lecture Australia on its domestic politics.
These criticisms of our country often stem from the subsidiary bodies within the General Assembly, which include the Human Rights Council as well as the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People. Collectively, these individuals/ groups have taken a great liking to shaming Australia and its supposed injustices.
Despite Australia being one of the few developed nations in the world who managed to stop mass illegal immigration, while accepting generous humanitarian intakes, we have constantly been accused of ‘human rights abuses’. This was seen at an official hearing of the Human Rights Council, in which Australia’s refugee policies were described as ‘inhumane’. But was there any UN mention of the thousands of lives lost at sea, until mandatory intention was reimposed?
Likewise, the Council moved to condemn ‘rising levels of Islamophobia’ in Australia. And yet, has the UN ever had the courage to condemn religious intolerance in the Middle East, and the ongoing genocide of Christians? Extraordinarily no, yet it still finds time to pass ill- considered critiques on the sovereign matters of Australia.
Through the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights, Australia’s policies towards its Indigenous people have also been criticized for being ‘racist’. But does the cultural relativist UN Special Rappporteur, James Anaya, acknowledge the real suffering faced by Indigenous people, in circumstances where drug and alcohol abuse is ignored due to fears of political correctness?
As we can see, the bodies of the UN are constantly enforcing their anti- Western world views on our nation. This comes despite these individuals and bodies having no direct electoral relationship with the Australian people.
And if the UN’s repeated berating of our country wasn’t enough, consider the very pretext under which this organisation first emerged.
The UN was created in the aftermath of World War Two and the Holocaust, which was the worst genocide and event of human suffering in history. Once upon a time, the international community and the UN, was universally unified behind insuring that ‘never again’ could such crimes occur.
How the times have changed. Now, the world’s only Jewish state, finds itself cornered, bullied and intimidated at the UN, with anti- Israel resolutions dominating proceedings in the General Assembly.
Meanwhile, Iran has threatened the Jewish race with annihilation, and the UN Human Rights council have remained silent on this threat. This is the same silence and culture of appeasement that was transparent in 1930’s Germany. And for the UN to become tolerable to this very same culture some 80 years later, is an unforgivable betrayal of human rights and the organisation’s basic mission.
In addition to these fundamental and extensive flaws, the UN has become virtually defunct in solving conflict. Whilst it is able to provide mandate for various peacekeeping missions, the organisation has been unable to prevent conflict across the globe, with the entire Middle East in turmoil, in addition to areas of Africa and Asia. The function of the Security Council is further weakened, given the military actions of the United States and Russia that occur regardless of UN approval.
This multitude of overbearing limitations within the UN only leave us with one conclusion: the organisation has been an abject failure.
It is from this defined standpoint, that we may explore policies taken toward the UN, including the potential for an ‘Aus- exit’ as popularized by Senator Roberts.
Like anything else, foreign policy should be approached rationally, with both the harms and benefits of a likely outcome considered prior to any decision.
So while there would be benefits in exiting the UN, which would include breaking free from the arrogant, contemptuous elitists that seek to bring our country down and potentially acting as a trailblazer for others to leave this incessant degeneracy of an organisation, I would argue that the costs would outweigh these rewards.
Being the first nation in the world to exit the UN would enter our country into a world full of unknowns, and potentially isolationism of a grand sort. Additionally, exiting the UN would simply not have the same effect in regards to independence as did in the earlier vote for Brexit.
To exit the UN may be to overlook the possible costs to our alliances and the potential for the organisation to financially, strategically and culturally, punish Australia in order to deter future nations from following in our footstep.
It seems that the most appropriate course of action to the UN, should be something between the status quo and that of One Nation’s proposal.
There is no need for UN agreements, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention to govern Australia’s refugee policies, particularly in the changed climate of OIC immigration and people smuggling.
Likewise, the Indigenous Declaration on Human Rights (which Australia reluctantly signed), is a subtle yet definitive attempt, to achieve self governance for Indigenous people, and it contradicts the very ideals of a sovereign nation state.
Thus, it would be most desirable if Australia withdrew its signature from these 2 conventions, so that a more informed, pragmatic set of domestic approaches free from foreign interference, could be pursued.
Any reasonable, level- headed person that analyses the UN in some detail, would certainly understand and empathize with calls for Australia to leave the organisation.
Nevertheless, for now, I believe it to be best for Australia to maintain its UN membership, whilst withdrawing from certain conventions detrimental to our national interests.
This should be the path taken for now, however, if the United States or another great power contemplated leaving the UN, our future membership of the organisation should be seriously reconsidered.