Redoing The UN

[This will be a little longer than usual. I hope it's worth your time.]

Reality time. I got all huffy and indignant last week at the failures of the United Nations, and I indicated additional costs to New York from maintaining their headquarters here. I indicated the advantages both to the United States and to New York City of terminating an association with the organization. But I did not actually propose that we do so.

Would we be justified? What I said about the organization's failure still stands. The high hopes I, and others had for the United Nations have, unfortunately, not proved to reflect its actual accomplishments, but the path of withdrawal, however warranted it might be, would likely take us where we don't want to go. A stick without a carrot may be effective in the short run, but it is not liable to provide the long term results we desire.

Murphy, whoever he may have been, predicted that whatever we tried to do would fail. He did not say so, though others have, that every action has unanticipated consequences. Unanticipated and undesired. Withdrawal from the UN certainly would. “What if” analyses would uncover a lot of them but not all. If we wait until all results are predictable, however, no action would ever be taken, so we have to work with best guesses.

Some things are clear. Those nations – and there are many of them – that distrust the US or dislike us for any reason will certainly detest us even more. And it's also certain that people will remain people and they will continue to place personal and national interests above those that are international. It's easy to speak piety, but practicing it isn't likely unless there is something to be gained thereby. The rich will remain rich, and the poor, poor. The strong will continue to be powerful and want to dominate the weak. Because people – and now I'm talking about national leaders, but we're all the same – won't change. There has to be something that convinces the population that they will benefit from what is offered, or a tyrant will have free rein.

Carrots are indicated. An unsupervised infusion of money won't do the trick, since those leaders will often find a way to siphon off most of it for themselves, but development and training programs for the uneducated and for those without a way of earning a living may be helpful. One possibility is for the United States to send to the poor nations, perhaps the poorest first, a group capable of evaluating what resources or services can be developed in each nation – preferably to fill a need that is not being filled already and is thus “needed” by the rest of the world – and then a team to supply needed materials and help them implement the recommendations of the group. Other countries must be discouraged afterwards from trying to compete. The goal would be to have each nation able to provide some things the world needs and thus make cooperation between countries to everyone's benefit. Mutual dependence may help nations; development will help individuals and make them less susceptible to the promises of tyrants. New nations that apply for UN membership should be required to submit development plans that will benefit their own citizens.

We might also send materials and workers to assist in the building of homes and other necessary buildings in countries that are too poor to be able to do so on their own. The Peace Corps and Habitat For Humanity are among the models which might be considered. The personnel performing this function would also be useful in teaching farming and other techniques that would aid individuals and families in areas that are not national priorities.

Another inducement – and one that would lessen the strain on New York City – would be to move the UN to somewhere accessible nearby where land is less expensive. The sale of property in mid-Manhattan, both land and buildings, would bring in a large bankroll which might at least pay for the beginnings of the establishment of a UN campus, more modern and congenial than the one imagined in the 1940s, close to the city but outside it, with buildings (including a museum in which nations would be able to display whatever about their countries that they deem significant), residences for representatives of all nations, and the conveniences of a small town (restaurants, grocery stores, clothing stores, etc.) and would lessen the congestion in the city while turning Turtle Bay into taxable property. And it would lessen the city's security costs and the abuse of our laws by those with diplomatic immunity. Payment by the various countries involved, of less than they were paying for rent and other expenses in the city would also contribute to making the campus viable. (And they'd have to work with each other in governing themselves.) Such a facility would also provide privacy for the workings of the organization. True, the diplomats would be separated from fancy restaurants, theaters, and expensive shops, but the purpose of the UN is not to amuse diplomats, but to get the world's work done. And it's also a sad fact that school class trips to the UN would be all but eliminated, however it would be for a good cause.

As for the UN's functions, security should be provided for all nations, possibly based on agreement that all borderlines are sacrosanct and a standing UN army will be activated automatically, and with only limited discussion, whenever one country's troops, “irregulars,” or ordinance, cross a border without permission. It would constitute a universal military alliance, making local pacts irrelevant. We always search for ways to avoid confrontation. It's certainly virtuous to do so, but there are some “red lines” we must draw and enforce if we hope to get nations to respect each other's borders. Sanctions may be good warnings, but assured action is more likely to achieve the purpose.

A single international economic body makes sense and would eliminate the need for multiple, often competing agreements. All nations should contribute to it, with contributions based on territory, population and some fiscal measure like gross national product. All monetary grants (except as noted) should be in the form of programs that are paid from its funds. Forensic accountants should be employed to make sure that the money used doesn't go into the pockets of officials and other skimmers. Money may be disbursed when a country's economy demands, but the forensic accountants should monitor this as well. (And, perhaps, the accountants should also be monitored.)

Steps should be taken as well to help the organization act more honorably. One of its goals is the promotion of human rights. So says its charter, but the UN doesn't always live up to its ideals. The UN Human Rights Commission regularly contains nations that have poor records – they are among the worst offenders of the UN principles – but their democratic election is appropriate. However member nations should be required to appraise each other's record annually by completing a rating form of all members annually. Their appraisal can be evaluated by everyone to see if it is unbiased and if the choices of members in the commission corresponds to it; and if the agenda and the views of the group seem to make sense. Of course some nations may decline to perform evaluations, but this, too, should be public knowledge.

Similarly every nation should evaluate the performance of the other nations in regard to their compliance with other rulings by the UN. Here, too, the evaluations would have no purpose other than to educate the world's population about what members believe – or at least say – about each other. And it may put some countries in the position of having to justify and live up to their claims.

A single judiciary should be established making it both unnecessary and impossible for individual nations to prosecute “war criminals” from other countries. Many prosecutions are justified, but others are primarily for political purposes.

Perhaps the published evaluations (the UN already publishes a great deal) would put nations in the position of rethinking their stands on various issues and various procedures. It would certainly help the public understood the stands of the member nations which would be the case if their biases (points of view, if you prefer) are already known. As such it will lessen the need for prolonged and repetitive arguments in the General Assembly. Discussion of real issues is warranted, but prolonged vituperation can be avoided.

And that brings us to the worst problem – the one that led me to consider the UN in the first place. It is the veto which is used to provide a stumbling block to action. Whatever its original justification, its primary implementation is for the purpose of preventing the UN from taking action. What might be useful is to turn the founding nations into a crisis committee of five and require only a majority vote for it to bring any item to the full Security Council at which two vetoes would be necessary to block any action. Speeches made in the Council could also be evaluated by the world's population in the light of previously stated positions. It would still be possible to block action but it would be harder and political causes would be more obvious.

Would such changes help? Would they have the effect of making the UN into a true advocate of world peace? Are they practical? Are they practicable? Of course not. There are many consequences I haven't foreseen or considered.  But discussion of them may cause members to rethink both the procedures of the organization and the decisions it reaches. And it may be enough to hold us over until meaningful changes can be made. And it may provide time for us to revise our parking laws.






February 12, 2017