UN is 63 and shows no signs of retiring

24 October, 2008, 11:59

The United Nations is the world’s second attempt of its kind. The first, the League of Nations, was declared a failure when the Second World War started. In honour of the UN’s 63rd anniversary, we stop for a moment to ponder this enormous and controversial organisation.

Why is the United Nations like God? Because if it didn’t exist, it would have to be invented. The preamble to the UN Charter is as fine an expression of higher human aspirations, in content, if not in form, as the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. Unfortunately, the lofty principles of the organisation have suffered an accretion of possibly less worthy stances, as well as a haughty and self-indulgent bureaucracy. That, in turn has led to scandals, contradictory accusations and outright lunacy.

The UN is a formidable administration, with over 7000 mandates (that is, roughly, missions), 40 agencies (and 20 non-affiliated agencies that work with it), four councils, secretariat, a court, commissions, subsidiary organs, and so on. Even if all of that were necessary and effective, which has been and still is debated, that alone would be enough to earn it the enmity of many. And so it was, during the Reagan administration, that the United States, by far the largest contributor to the UN, began withholding its payments, demanding reform. It remains behind in its payments to this day.

It would be helpful if the facts about the UN were kept strictly separated from our unhealthy fantasies about it. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s words at the recent General Assembly that “In order to manage a totally new situation as it evolved after 9/11, instead of the required genuine cooperative effort, including a joint analysis and coordination of practical steps, the mechanisms designed for a unipolar world started to be used, one where all decisions were to be taken in a single centre while the rest were merely to follow,” which, translated into English urged the UN to throw off U.S. domination, would cause many Americans of the rightist persuasion to laugh themselves silly (well, sillier). The UN, as they well know, exists to undermine nations’ independence and is openly anti-American.

Some of those same people believe the UN has a fleet of black helicopters that fly around doing dirty deeds and tattooing things on people’s foreheads (or something like that). Others are quite serious government officials, such as John Bolton, who famously said that “there is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.” President George W. Bush appointed him UN ambassador in an unsubtle show of disdain for the organisation.

Lavrov’s position should be held up to scrutiny as well. Russia’s aggressive (and successful) diplomatic tactics in the UN date back to the first Soviet ambassador, Andrey Gromyko (affectionately known as “Mr. Nyet”). Nikita Khrushchev’s famous shoe-pounding should not go unmentioned, and current Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin’s antics are already the subject of humour in the circle he moves in.

Undoubtedly, the truth is all of the above. The UN is U.S. dominated and anti-American, just as it is demonstrably egregiously pro- and anti-Israeli. Even if it’s true, as Churkin claimed in reference to the conflict in the Caucasus, that “the [UN] Secretariat and its leadership were unable to adopt an objective position,” Russian diplomacy is highly effective in the UN. The UN is not to blame if the U.S. is unpopular in the world. Nor is it the UN’s doing that the U.S. is very powerful. If Lavrov’s proposal that Georgia be judged by the full assembly of the 192 UN member states does not turn out as he hopes (and there are no particular indications that it will), Burkina Faso, Bhutan and Tonga will share the responsibility for that, and then they will vote against the U.S. in the next resolution.

Why is the UN like God? Because it is created in our image. It is inefficient, inconsistent, illogical and a few other bad things. It is what human society looks like on all levels. It is also the queen mother of all the many, many international organisations that exist, and an expression of mankind’s higher aspiration. As such, it is necessary in the modern world – as a diagnostic tool, if nothing else.

Derek Andersen, RT