Manipulating the U. N. is Unconstitutional

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Feb 13, 2012 at 12:03

An interesting perspective here, one that for this reader appears to touch upon a source of debate of the value of the U. N., though for potentially differing reasons. Does the United Nations deserve to continue in the role of international mediator when it is obvious it has become a tool of manipulation for the agenda of the manipulators? That depends upon whether the interest served is that of the manipulated or the manipulator.

That the United States of America may be called the latter, let it be plain that it is not alone in its attempts to use the institution it helped create, agents of other international interests becoming quite adept at manipulation as well; and quite successfully so as we have seen in the promotion of the 'Palestinian' cause. Israel, on the other hand, is always on the defense, having been there since its only one true victory, the declaration of statehood.

To be sure, the American administration (s) use of the U.N. has been critically used and acclaimed for the variety of reasons many would offer, good and bad; but all pointing to one thing – the United Nations being sought out only when the circumstances cannot be unilaterally resolved. But there is the undercurrent of what the U. N. potentially represents, possibly alluded to by the previous reader's Ianus use of the term 'underlying fraud,' but more to the point; of the potential that an ulterior motive has always been in the background, if people could only figure that out.

Case in point: Syria: is the potential of Syria's imminent collapse a true reason for the United Nations to intervene; and if so, would Syria's best interests be served if the Russian CIS and China went along with asking al-Assad to step down? And yet we do not see that: Russia and China are blocking that effort: why?

Does the United States desire that Syria would be better served if the current regime were to fold and be replaced by another type of Muslim dominated government if so: why? If we listen to the American Secretary of State, we must read between the lines to discern what she is saying in contrast to what the American Chief Administrative Executive to get the idea that conflicting intentions are at play here, but the result is intended to be the same. In the mean time, the Bashar al-Assad regime does nothing to help its own cause: it is a sinking ship of state.

Now diplomacy by democracies is a lost methodology in the current forum of governments; for no current government has a truly democratic process, most practicing faux democracies functioning on a limited form of republicanism, that of a governing body being presented as being representative of the people being governed. A careful examination of ALL of them demonstrates that the people are being misrepresented and manipulated for certain political reasons, whatever they may be. That they cannot get their own house in order and then try to export the same misguided methodologies to other places for reasons left to the academics is reason enough to see that exploitation is the order of the day; the tally of who won the last debate at the end of the day prior is fodder for the next day's debate. Who can win at that?

In reality, depending upon the United Nations for any rational solution is antithetical; for there is no unity and no democratic process being served. And as a referee, the U. N. fails as well for the lack of neutrality from any quarter. But as reader Ianus poses, does a increased status NATO type of successor present a better political mechanism? It is suggested here that even as the League of Nations found itself morphed into the United Nations, a NATO stylized successor is not going to do any better, for the players will still be the same and only the name will; have changed. But something else is at play and is alluded to by reader Ianus's implication: accuser, judge and executioner. This is not a committee position, but that of an individual. One might suggest the Secretary General of the U. N. is potentially in that position, but the facts demonstrate otherwise. Were that so, Israel would have been mapped in Arabic as Kofi Anan postulated years ago with a redrawn map already in hand. We all see how that worked out.

And finally, the notion that "only an American president can dismiss the UNSC and transfer its authority to an organization of only democratically-elected governments" is clouded with the ambiguous idea that an American president has enough power to do that very thing. It is suggested where that though one might think an American president could actually achieve such a thing (is that not regime change?), how has that worked in the past? But one that uses American style politics without the ethics of its true Constitutional form could think they could do just exactly that; and that is what gets American politicians in trouble, every time.

Do not look for an American president to manipulate the U. N. to do the whims of his office as an American president: but a leader that has left the American Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution behind politically might.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".