With all the hashtag campaigns going on right now, could we get a #DumpTheUN campaign started?
Let’s look at the UN as contrasted to NATO. NATO and the UN are very different organizations. They serve different roles.
What we think about them reveals more about us than it does about the institutions themselves. Consider: NATO (at least at first) was a mutual defence pact. Two World Wars showed how vulnerable some member nations were to the disruption of North Atlantic shipping lanes. More importantly, it showed how hostile forces could (and did) exploit that vulnerability.
At the time (1949) the Cold War was just beginning and the Soviet threat was just beginning to rise. Whatever it may have become since, NATO began as a group of partner nations joining the common cause for mutual defense, and nothing more.
The UN, however, is something else entirely. It’s a “Progressive” wet dream, leftovers from that other miserable failure, the League of Nations.
The League of Nations and the UN are not treaties like NATO. They are and were institutions.
What was the chief aim of the League of Nations when it was formed in 1920? It was formed to ensure world peace. That plan worked out so well that they had to change the name of the “Great War” to “World War I” so as not to confuse it with the next one.
The League of Nations and its daughter, the United Nations are indeed nothing like NATO. People have already begun looking at it as a government that stands above national governments, as though it has some sort of legitimate jurisdiction.
Here is the problem with that. In any country, whether the US, China, Brazil or wherever, there is a population being governed by its own people who — to some degree — share ideas and values common to their own country.
The problem with groups like the UN is that they have no unifying principles, no shared values. It, therefore, unleashes all the worst aspects of Democracy fusing those with all the failings represented in 193 member nations.
What’s wrong with Democracy, you might ask? We’re a democracy! We hear our politicians say it all the time. In fact, one of the most damning criticisms one can make is to call someone undemocratic.
Western nations are NOT democracies. They might be a Constitutional Republic, or a Parliamentary Monarchy, or some other system with a representative government, but these are not democracies. Any system that attempts to be a pure democracy will eventually break down into mob rule. It will simply happen that way.
Look at it this way. There are 193 member nations. Five permanent members with Veto, and 10 countries serving 2-year terms.
Besides this, there are any number of committees and projects run by other countries. For example, the United Nations Human Rights Council — current membership — laughably includes countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and China. Past membership looked little better.
One hundred ninety-three countries with conflicting values trying to hammer out a standard for others to follow ends this way. Western nations want to appear Progressive and bind themselves (either morally or literally) to whatever proposals are made by the UN.
Other nations will happily play along. They will nod at all the right places, purse their lips when they mention the need of saving the world (from climate change, for example) take their photo ops, go home and laugh at the suckers in the West who will actually try to abide by laws that give a financial advantage to the countries who signed treaties but had no interest in being bound by them.
It’s a worthless institution, run by corrupt fools. The forces in Blue Helmets whose “Peacekeeping efforts” we are so proud of have produced “dollar girls” in some of the nations we are allegedly helping — the dollar in their name being the price they get for “services rendered”.
If there are individual pieces under their umbrella that you still value — perhaps the WHO for example — choose whether or how you want to be involved. But much of the UN is just corrupt, expensive and pointless.
If World Peace was still one of their objectives, right? And the UN is critical in maintaining it? Then why do we see an upsurge of violence unrivaled (says the UN) since WWII? What steps have they taken to stop ISIS in their tracks?
There was scandal after scandal. Like the one that appears to have connected no less than the General Secretary Kofi Annan to the Iraqi Oil-for-food scandal.
The UN is occupying prime New York real estate. Are there not better uses for it than for propping up a group that has no real commitment to American interests generally?