Rebuking the UN

The United Nations has rebuked President Trump.  That was the media's general theme in reporting the U.N. General Assembly resolution that expressed "with deep regret ... recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem."  The resolution, approved by a vote of 128 in favor, 9 opposed, and 35 abstentions, also, among other things, declared "null and void" actions changing the status of Jerusalem, declaring that such actions "must be rescinded."

While the resolution did not name any state, much less a political leader, the media rushed to consider it a stinging slap at President Trump.  Britain was among those voting for the resolution.  Previously, the British ambassador had commented that plans to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are "unhelpful to the prospects for peace in the region."

The General Assembly action was obviously arranged as an end-run around the veto that prevented the Security Council from opposing President Trump's announcement that the U.S. embassy in Israel would be moved to Jerusalem.

In her forceful statement before the vote, Ambassador Nikki Haley asserted that President Trump's decision "does nothing to hard peace efforts."  Rather, "the president's decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.  There is no need to describe it further."

She did not stop at that point, but offered this rebuke:

Instead there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to used our influence for their benefit.

America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want is to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.

But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the IN and this vote will be remembered.

Next, Ambassador Haley issued a clear warning that Washington might reduce its financial support for the UN:

When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the 'privilege' of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

The Haley statements should crystallize the importance of the 2016 election.  The U.S. has a president unafraid to place U.S. policy on the firm shoulder of national sovereignty, rather than on the unsteady soil of appeasement of hostile forces.  Had the American people elected a different person president, there would never have been a General Assembly resolution on Jerusalem disrespecting the sovereignty of the United States, because we would have elected an administration not particularly proud of being American.

The United Nations has rebuked President Trump.  That was the media's general theme in reporting the U.N. General Assembly resolution that expressed "with deep regret ... recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem."  The resolution, approved by a vote of 128 in favor, 9 opposed, and 35 abstentions, also, among other things, declared "null and void" actions changing the status of Jerusalem, declaring that such actions "must be rescinded."

While the resolution did not name any state, much less a political leader, the media rushed to consider it a stinging slap at President Trump.  Britain was among those voting for the resolution.  Previously, the British ambassador had commented that plans to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem are "unhelpful to the prospects for peace in the region."

The General Assembly action was obviously arranged as an end-run around the veto that prevented the Security Council from opposing President Trump's announcement that the U.S. embassy in Israel would be moved to Jerusalem.

In her forceful statement before the vote, Ambassador Nikki Haley asserted that President Trump's decision "does nothing to hard peace efforts."  Rather, "the president's decision reflects the will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.  There is no need to describe it further."

She did not stop at that point, but offered this rebuke:

Instead there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to used our influence for their benefit.

America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want is to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that.

But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at countries who disrespect us in the IN and this vote will be remembered.

Next, Ambassador Haley issued a clear warning that Washington might reduce its financial support for the UN:

When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is asked to pay for the 'privilege' of being disrespected.

In the case of the United States we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to its people. As such we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial capital is being poorly spent.

The Haley statements should crystallize the importance of the 2016 election.  The U.S. has a president unafraid to place U.S. policy on the firm shoulder of national sovereignty, rather than on the unsteady soil of appeasement of hostile forces.  Had the American people elected a different person president, there would never have been a General Assembly resolution on Jerusalem disrespecting the sovereignty of the United States, because we would have elected an administration not particularly proud of being American.