Versión Español
EspañolThere are reports out [this week] that Cuba is going to represent Puerto Rico at the United Nations. That’s … great. Has anyone in the Puerto Rican government thought for a moment about the implications of having Cuba represent their interests before the United Nations?
Granted, there may be other officials from Puerto Rico there, but no one should ever speak on behalf of Puerto Rico except Puerto Ricans themselves or their elected government. The elected government should always have someone going to speak before the United Nations whenever Puerto Rico is being discussed.
There is another issue. The United Nations was founded around the time of World War II, some 75 years ago. (The United Nations was officially founded in October of 1945, but its original partner nations, which included the Allies, were already using the term UN during WWII.)
It was to replace the League of Nations, which was kind of a failure. The United Nations’ intentions were great. The Allies supported it in WWII, and of course it was “UN” troops that landed on the beaches of Normandy in June of 1944.
Those great intentions have … gone down the toilet.
In recent years, Cuba has been allowed to lead the UN Council on Human Rights. Now think about that for a second: a communist country with a horrific record on human rights, with rulers abusing and cracking down on freedom protesters within their own nation, running the Human Rights Council? And speaking on behalf of Puerto Rico? (Recently, 100 Cubans were arrested after going to church.)
As many of you know, I support independence for Puerto Rico. My vision of independence is vastly different from that of the Puerto Rico Independence Party (PIP). I believe in free markets, civil rights, and natural rights. I do not believe in communism. I do not support communism and I never will.
But in considering what the future might hold for an independent Puerto Rico, the question of the United Nations obviously comes up. And I’ve come to a decision. An independent Puerto Rico should not join the United Nations, unless it can join as a founding member.
There is a reason for this.
When the United Nations was formed, part of the rules was that new member nations would have to sign, ratify, and enforce (for at least fivve years) all existing treaties previously approved by the United Nations. The idea was to get new nations to join the United Nations as quickly as possible. In other words, a kind of pressure tactic.
Here is the problem: Puerto Rico wasn’t around as an independent country in 1944. It wasn’t around in 1945, 1950, 1960, 1970… The nation, as an independent country, has ever existed. So that means that if Puerto Rico joins the United Nations today, Puerto Rico would have to ratify and enforce 75 years of bad UN treaties, that are enforced as international law by the United Nations and its member states.
Many of those treaties violate the sovereignty of individuals and obviously the sovereignty of nations. A founding member, however, gets to choose which treaties to sign, ratify, and enforce.
If Puerto Rico becomes independent, it should hold out as long as possible from joining the United Nations, and if it is forced to join, the new constitution should include a clause where all treaties expire exactly five years and one day after they are ratified, unless purposely extended by the legislature or the people (my proposed constitution contains both options).
The reason for this is that upon separating from the United States, Puerto Rico might be forced to join the United Nations and enforce all of those horrific treaties. But then five years and one day later, the legislature would have to consider each one individually and make a decision as to whether or not those treaties make sense, for the people of Puerto Rico.
Thanks for watching.
Discussion about this post