[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
