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.