The United Nations vs. Mankind
Every once in awhile the topic of the United Nations comes up in different circles. The topic is often raised at the weekly luncheon of the local branch of the VRWC.
This is when I chime in with my crazed left-wing rant, along this line …
Discussion Is Good
“Yes, the United Nations is in desperate need of reform. Yes, most of their operations are misguided, unhelpful, and, too often, negative. But, I feel safer in a world where nations have a place to go to discuss the issues facing the planet, versus having no place at all.”
One could make a similar argument about nearly any transnational organization: “If the outcome is not always perfect, hey, at least they’re talking!”
Objectives Sometimes Happen
The UN has the distinction of including almost every nation on the globe (save Taiwan, and a few others in ‘the gray area’). They also have nice sounding objectives, like the advancement of human rights.
So, my argument continues: “if their stated objectives are good ones, then the UN may occasionally make some real contribution toward achieving them.”
This later notion hinges on the assumption that other humans would not be fooled by actions that are directly counter to the stated objectives, and that this basic assumption about humankind would (often grudgingly) force member nations to move in the right direction.
Hot Air Rises
Those attending the grand meeting of nations come with truckloads of special interests dragged through the doors (and stuffed just below camera level, under the desk).
When these special interests are varied and disunited, nations wouldn’t really care what others have hiding under their desk. This ‘uncaring’ makes the special interest rather ‘unspecial’. So, what’s left? Well, genuinely good ideas that serve the common good and the stated objectives, of course.
Reality Bites
It’s on this last point where my crazed left-wing ‘Faith Lite’ in the United Nations has been badly shaken by recent events.
I still hold that bringing the nations of the world together for a chat is a good idea. I also believe that ‘stated objectives’ are sometimes accomplished, even if by bureaucratic accident.
However, condemning Israel for daring to defend itself against terrorist thuggery runs counter to the UN Charter: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to reaffirm faith in [...] the equal rights of [...] nations large and small.”
Whoops! It seems they forgot to mention the equal rights of terrorist organizations, large and small.
The United Nations has been hijacked by an anti-Israel agenda. The space under the desk is too small to contain the hatred of some countries, and the backbone of far too many other countries has already left the building.
Global terrorist organizations should be condemned, not democratic nations defending themselves from terror.
Worse, many people around the world have been fooled, and are waving their fingers at the wrong culprit.
The United Nations, in its current form, has failed mankind. I don’t celebrate it. It is an awful tragedy.
Diffusing Attack Ads
I think next election would be far more fun (and successful for the Conservatives) if we developed our own parody attack ads, and ran them at the beginning. I think it would diffuse any serious attacks later on.
Here’s an example:
The background music is the Imperial Death March.
The setting is space. A meteor flies by. The view shifts to earth, and above Canada a giant death-star is being constructed.
The female voice-over begins:
“Stephen Harper and the Conservatives have promised to build the Death Star.”
[Intentional Pause]
“Mr. Harper wants Canada to become an evil planet-destroying nation. We believe Canadians would prefer other, more peaceful, make work projects.”
[The music transforms into a snappy bluegrass number.]
“Vote for Jack Layton and the NDP, because a moustache says ‘Come on, you can trust me!’”
“OK. If you can’t vote for Jack, then at least vote for Joe Volpe and the Liberals. Kids are people, too!”
Male voice quickly notes:
“Paid for by the Conservative Party of Canada.”
I guess this is why I don’t get paid for my strategic ideas. Sigh.
Israel
When you extend an olive branch, you don’t expect reasonable people to set it ablaze then attempt to poke your eyes out with the flaming prongs.
Yet, this is exactly what happened to Israel. Unilaterally pull out of disputed regions with no expectation of reward, only a faint hope that such a grand gesture will stop people from relentlessly bombing your country nearly every day.
No such luck. A deal failed. A unilateral grand gesture of peace failed. Clearly the only solutions left are to (a) build more bunkers, and get used to it, or (b) occupy the launch zones indefinitely. If it was my olive branch burning, I would certainly choose option (b).
Until anybody else has some brilliant idea, this is going to continue to go on for a long, long time.
Network
