Welcome to the Crazy World of the United Nations
Did you know that the United Nations has a Human Rights Council made up of forty-seven nations who each sit on the Council for three years, elected on a rotational basis from the 193 UN members. On 1 January 2021 they elected the following countries for a three year term, to oversee human rights on behalf of all nations.
Bolivia, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, France, Gabon, Malawi, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan,
Russian Federation, Senegal, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Uzbekistan.
These 15 members will serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2021. Do you notice anything odd about these nominees ?
Yes, you spotted it. Both Russia and Ukraine were sitting side by side on the human rights council : today the UN has suspended the Russian Federation from the council, I wonder why.
Then you have the UN Security Council which has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. There are five permanent members (USA, UK, France, China and Russia). The UN Security Council gives veto powers to its five permanent members, which means essentially that any resolution put to the security council can die instantly if one permanent member of the council says ‘nyet’. So, if there was a vote to remove, for instance, the Russian Federation from the security council it would have to have Russia’s approval to go ahead.
It seems that the only thing the security council can regularly achieve unanimous agreement on is a resolution to break for lunch !
From time to time the UN is characterised as a nut house and it does seem that Alice in Wonderland was adopted as a template – you be the judge :
“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.
“Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”
“How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice.
“You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”
― Alice in Wonderland
You may well think that the United Nations no longer has a place in the modern world but, like coal mining its supporters say, it provides employment : what more could you ask ?
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
7 commentsLogin here Register here
And the USA uses it’s veto power to protect Israel from UN sanctions for their abhorrent treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. All parties ignore the UN when it suits them, even Aus rejects some of their findings.
The UN wants to be THE One World Government. To control the world and “build back back better”, it’s first necessary to destroy the sovereignty of democratic nations. This will be an effortless process in the West as Biden, Trudeau, Boris, Jacinda and Morrison steer their respective ‘undemocracies’, or ‘democracies in name only’ if you prefer, into the rocks of non-functionality. The highest level of the UN is a clique of megalomaniacs. They like to go clubbing with their WHO and WEF buddies at Davos. The UN says all the right things eg sustainable goals program, but read between the lines and they are just feel good statements hiding a real intent. KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov warned the West but most were too busy to notice. It is now very late in the game.
The UN is toothless, useless, None of its findings or resolutions have any legal bearing and can (and are) regularly ignored. It is basically a plaything of the USA. The ideals of the League of Nations are just a faded memory.
Due to its “mad rules”, the UN is already doomed from its beginning as ineffectual. When any body is controlled by a few powerful nations, it cannot be an equitable and meritocratic institution. The employment of veto power is the worst kind of power abuse imaginable.
“It seems that the only thing the security council can regularly achieve unanimous agreement on is a resolution to break for lunch !”
LOL good one and probably pretty accurate too.
I’ve known decent, intelligent people who have worked for The U.N. and The W.H.O. and they have all said what well meaning outfits they are but stifled by bureaucracy. Much mention has been made of appeasement and the spectre of Chamberlain on his return from Munich after seeing Hitler. Modern historians are now more aware that Britain was in no position to have a war and required another 18 months to rearm. The League of Nations, set up after the first war had been politicised into less than a meaningful talk feat. Give The U.N. some more time. The picture keeps on changing and other forces are at work. Giving Putin a way out would be a noble achievement. Most recent wars have been about oil; in my view. Russia has the last untapped large oilfield in Siberia and The Odessa field is almost exhausted so this must be about wheat and the food crisis we are about to have
So the UN is a bit bonkers in places, but it does provide sort of a central framework blob, as opposed to a precise point, in which member states can work to resolve differences. It is high time the charter was updated to remove veto rights in the security council which has seen the veto applied so often it feels like it happens every time they meet. What we need is UN mark 2 with the stupid bits fixed and a more even power balance rather than no UN.
The problem with despots like Putin, is that even if a logical binding legal framework existed with penalties, he wouldn’t care because he sends his minions into battle and it’s their fault if war crimes are committed.