UNdoing The World's Business

The United States is the center of the diplomatic world. That's been the case for quite a while. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in establishing the League of Nations – even if the United States never joined. And the establishment of the United Nations during World War II was, in large part, based on American initiatives. In 1945 that newly-organized body was formally established when the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, and eventually was headquartered in Turtle Bay on land donated by the Rockefellers. It was a noble endeavor.

There were many reasons for constituting the organization – initially it derived from the formation of an alliance to defeat the Axis powers, but, by the time it was finally established, the war was over. Nonetheless it was believed that a forum where all nations could meet and talk would be preferable to multiple discussions and multiple treaties between nations, and it was felt that problems could be talked out and wars averted. Honorable goals, indeed.

Declarations of rights followed, and agencies were formed in order to deal with particular problems – problems whose solution would benefit us all, but primarily the impoverished, oppressed, and needy around the world. We might approximate Wendell Willkie's goal of One World.

It didn't take long to discover, however, that serious problems existed. Perhaps the most obvious of these was the veto, that allowed certain nations to block decisions of the Security Council – the most important action organ of the UN. The veto, itself, however, made sense on paper. It was clear that when the organization admitted more members – members who may not have aided in the defeat of the Axis – they might outvote the “heavy lifters” who had done the bulk of the fighting and dying during the war, the nations that founded the UN, and those nations might use the UN for their own purposes. Giving the founders, nations large in power but small in numbers, the power to block actions that might involve them in popular whims, more war, or anything else undesirable, was considered a wise action.

The result, however, was that these powerful nations, with different national interests and agendas, used their veto in the service of political aims, and they have done so to the present. Vetoes provide bargaining leverage when that is needed, and the illusion of being in control, although they know that countries that were once their allies could also veto their own favored programs. Perhaps these were unintended consequences, but they should have been anticipated.

What's left, then, is a General Assembly quite capable of righteous indignation and of talking, but a Security Council that can stymie any meaningful action – and almost invariably does. And the result is that the founders have “protected” their interests in the Council, but the other nations have hijacked the General Assembly. (And they've manipulated it – for example, making Israel the scapegoat for all the world's problems while they ignore the wars, genocides, and tyrannies around the world. Their words result largely from antisemitism and economics, but are framed in the jargon of political correctness and liberal ideology. It's Israel now, but could be another nation once Israel is out of the way.)

That is not to say that the UN doesn't have useful projects which, when not used as political tools, help the disadvantaged. There are efforts to improve health and to feed the needy; there are scientific projects and programs that provide aid in time of natural disaster. But when it comes to man-made disasters – actions and situations that might be viewed as suggesting responsibility – the UN is likely to be paralyzed by one or more of its members. And that's the case when conflict benefits one of the founding nations. Nations are more concerned about their own interests than the benefit of the world.

What are our interests? Specifically, how do we benefit from the UN? Has that organization achieved what it aimed at? Unfortunately there are still many wars, and there have been many murderous attacks to which the UN has not responded. The organization may have provided a forum for talk, but it has not prevented war, because war, murder, and even malicious speech are the acts of people – even if only a minority of people – people who have only their own interests at heart. And while they may try to affect the words and actions of the United Nations, they will not be affected by it. Their personal, and to a lesser extent their national, interests are all they care about. And they want the world to care about them too.

Has the UN made other alliances unnecessary? NATO, the EU, Confédération Interalliée des Sous-Officiers de Réserve (CISOR), the Islamic Military Alliance, the Peninsula Shield Force, and numerous other organizations suggest that this is not the case. Many such treaties and alliances exist outside the UN even though they should have been eliminated long ago.

Sad to note, however, the UN failure has not come cheap. The United States is assessed more than all the other founders combined for “peacekeeping” operations. Erin R. Graham , in an opinion essay in yesterday's Washington Post – one attempting to minimize and justify the cost to the US, – notes that “The United States also pays an estimated 28 percent of U.N. Peacekeeping budgets, due to its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member on the Security Council” but omits any mention of the far smaller assessments for the other “veto-bearing member[s].” It is of interest that our country, which supplies a home for the organization, also pays 22 percent of its total annual budget.

And there are costs to New York and to New Yorkers. In addition to the loss of valuable property in mid-town Manhattan, and the taxes that would accrue from it, there is the inconvenience of street closings and traffic congestion during General Assembly sessions. Not to be overlooked is the fat that the diplomats from many countries have immunity to all our laws, and, most annoyingly, are exempt from the parking and other regulations which we must observe.

The UN has failed, and we are all paying a high price for that failure. One solution (and I'll have more to say on the subject next week) is withdrawal from the UN and utilization of the property on which it stands. The billions saved by not supporting its bureaucracy and operations could be used to fund the kinds of health and agriculture projects which have been successful – without a “middle man” to drain off some of what we offer. And the absence of an outside controller would give us a greater ability to act in a timely manner.

Obviously it's not that simple. But the first step is acknowledgment that our hopes for unity and world peace have not been met. Perhaps we'd be better off if we were not at the center of the diplomatic world.