Third Party & Independents Archives

​So What Was The UN's Purpose Again?

​It’s UNGA time again in Manhattan. That would be the United Nations’ annual General Assembly. On the eve of the reunion, here’s what Nat. Security Adviser McMaster said:

“The United Nations of course holds tremendous potential to realize its founding ideas, but only if it’s run efficiently and effectively.”

Let’s unpack this one just a little. Consider the United Nations’ founding principles as outlined in Articles 1 and 2 of the UN Charter:

Article 1.2: Equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Ok, this was forged in 1945 on the ashes of Nazi Germany and Hiroshima/Nagasaki and on the eve of the Iron Curtain and the NATO vs. Warsaw Pact Cold War that saw proxy wars fought around the globe in a battle between Stalinism and Maoism on one side, and Western Capitalism and Representative Democracy on the other. Most of the proxy wars were fought in countries with little capitalism and less democracy, who furthermore were divided internally between corrupt authoritrarianism and crazed leftist revolutionary radicalism. Very little self-determination, in other words.

Article 2.4: Prohibition of threat or use of force in international relations.

Yeah. International relations during the Cold War and after the Cold War has been mostly about the threat of force (Mutually Assured Destruction) or the use of force (Proxy Wars). The permanent members of the Security Council? China, Russia, France, UK, and the USA. Name one of those 5 permanent members who haven't been involved in multiple conflicts since 1945, usually around the globe. Conflict IS the resolution more often than not. Avoiding a nuclear war has been achieved by threat, and even that may tragically come to an end if North Korea steps up its aggresssion even moreso than it already has.

Article 2.5: Obligation to give assistance to the United Nations and refrain from assisting States targeted with preventive or enforcement action.

Sure. It's nice when America foots the bill for a large percentage of the UN's mandates. And while, for example, the sanctions against South Africa worked and gave us Nelson Mandela's leadership, further north in Africa Rwanda and Burundi remain as horrifying failures on the part of UN mandates and it's permanent members, especially France, but the rest as well. Tillerson of course would like to see America's "obligation" to give and give be trimmed just a tad. A reasonable request.

Article 2.7: Non-intervention in domestic affairs by the United Nations.

An outright falsehood and a complete contradiction of much of the UN's mandates and missions. You CAN'T do a peace-keeping mission without interfering in a nation's domestic affairs. The UN exists precisely to interfere in targeted nations domestic affairs should a crisis threaten bloodshed and especially large amounts of refugees fleeing to the West. Let's be honest here. That's Europe's and America's first concern and why they often keep pushing for all sorts of peace-keeping missions.

The UN aspires to be a form of World Government. It always has, even if Truman's view in the late 40's of what that governance should involve and who should do the governing, was very different from say India's view nowadays. And like any national government, individual nations are always seeking carve-outs, so the UN is a welter of hypocritical and conflicting purposes. It could hardly be otherwise as a sort of World Government.

So perhaps, as the president heads to the UN, his past criticism of UN as a talk shop should instead be seen as a way to keep the UN from taking steps (the way the EU has in fact done) to truly become a World Government. Maybe it's good that's it's a corrupt playground for Third-World elites and Western diplomats. Imagine if the UN ruthlessly went about enforcing it's conflicting principles, as National Security Adviser McMaster suggests in the quote above. God help us if that were the case.

And if the UN should remain a talk shop with limited, occasional power, then shouldn't it also have a streamlined administration as Tillerson is suggesting? One that sends authority and money down the chain of command away from Manhattan and towards those who truly need assistance.

Posted by AllardK at September 20, 2017 6:17 PM
Comments
Comment #419991

What garbage gets posted here as excuses for not having any sensible writers willing to contribute.

I don’t care much about the UN. It’s supposed to provide experience in democracy for people who will end up running countries that are now non-democratic, with hopes for a better future. Now that our own government is opposed to democracy, loves autocrats, and makes threats against human rights and in favor of obliterating millions of people, it’s a bit of an anachronism for the UN to be in NYC.

The location is interesting though. There was a real estate deal, which the Rockefellers thwarted in order to prevent competition to Rockefeller Center, and then donated the land as a site for the UN.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 21, 2017 11:11 AM
Comment #420499

Thank you for sharing about this post.

Posted by: piknu at October 7, 2017 6:57 AM
Post a comment