Press Action ::: The Far Left Takes on the Far Right: An Open Letter to Patrick J. Buchanan

Sunday, December 12, 2004

The Far Left Takes on the Far Right: An Open Letter to Patrick J. Buchanan

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Dear Mr. Buchanan:

Though you and I are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum, I sometimes find myself agreeing with you. I will take this opportunity to thank you for your support of third parties.

Today, as I read your column, I was disturbed by some of the ideas that you put forward. In your December 8 article about the United Nations, in World Net Daily, you state,

”...As for adding six new members to the council, that is the first step en route to an inevitable demand for veto power for all six. Russia, Japan and India are already insisting upon it. When granted, and gridlock ensues with 11 nations having a veto, there will come a clamor for diluting or abolishing the veto power altogether.

For the hidden agenda of the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the WTO and the Kyoto Protocol is to curtail America’s freedom to act in its own interests and to midwife a world government erected on a one-man, one-nation, one-vote principle.

Under a global democracy, India and China, with 2.5 billion people, would be the dominant powers, and peoples of color, five-sixths of all mankind, would enter a claim for a more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth now held by that shrinking one-sixth of all mankind that is of European descent. Global democracy is the death of the West...."

You imply that the veto power, currently held by the five permanent members of the Security Council, should be maintained. Think about that. Why should any one nation have veto power over the rights of the rest of the world? That is so undemocratic. Veto power should have never been given to any member. The veto power and any preferential treatment given to any member state should be eliminated. I oppose any preferential treatment with one possible exception. The weight of a member state’s vote could be inversely proportional to the number of weapon systems of that nation. That system would give nations that lack military power increased voting power. There are two advantages to that proposal. It would discourage militarization and also be one step toward global equity.

In the next paragraph you say that a one-man, one-nation, one-vote principle is against America’s interests. Ah, finally an admission from a right-winger that the fundamental principles of democracy are a detriment to America’s interests. Thank you for putting that on the record. Those on my end of the political spectrum have been saying that for years. We need a little more democracy and a little less radical predatory capitalism.

The U.S. has a long record of using military force to prevent democracy throughout the world. I often site our government’s actions in Iran in 1953 as just one of many examples. If, as you state, “Global democracy is the death of the West.”, maybe it is time to plan for the funeral.

Respect for the International Criminal Court is necessary for global order. Membership should not be optional. Any nation, charged with a crime against international law, should be subject to the court’s findings. If a nation chooses to not participate, that nation should be tried in absentia. A verdict should be rendered. The rule of law should prevail.

Also, numerous civil cases need attention in the International Court of Justice. For more than twenty years, the victims of the most horrific act of industrial negligence in history have been crying out for justice from their legal quagmire. Could it be that U.S. corporations know how to game the system? Will the people of Bhopal ever receive justice? What about the people of Diego Garcia? What about the people of Panama? The international system of justice needs to be revised and strengthened. The U.S. should join the world community and give up its status as a rogue state.

The statement in your column that really disturbed me, enough that I am skipping my lunch to write to you, is your statement about “peoples of color” entering a claim for more equitable distribution of the world’s wealth. I know that you did not intend any racial undertones in that statement. Unfortunately, the racial undertones are there, intentional or not...not only racial undertones but an imperialistic and xenophobic slant, too.

How could anyone be opposed to equitable distribution of the world’s wealth? The only fair way to distribute the wealth and/or natural resources on the planet is on a per capita basis, with adjustments for climate etc. The people living in the tropics don’t need energy for heating but the Canadians do. The fact that the United States has been using more than its fair share of the Earth’s resources, has been a major global problem for a long time. Missing from your column are the legal or moral principles, which would justify an inequitable distribution of the earth’s wealth. It is only by military power that we can take more than our fair share. In my book, that is convincing evidence that the U.S. is following an undemocratic policy of Radical Predatory Capitalism.

Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. She can be reached at dissent@sover.net.

More from Rosemarie Jackowski