Why the UN must be destroyed 19

The UN must be destroyed because (to put it very mildly, coolly, and objectively):

  • It does no good to anyone
  • It does much harm to many
  • It is unreformable
  • It was a colossal mistake of wishful thinking from its beginning
  • It is kept going only because it is a gravy train for its bureaucrats and diplomats at enormous expense to tax-payers, especially Americans

A documentary film made recently by Ami Horowitz and Matt Groff, UN Me, exposes the worst incidences of its uselessness and corruption, violent and cruel actions, and refusals to do what it purportedly came into existence to do.

The following extracts are from an excellent article on the film by Bruce Bawer at Front Page. (It is well worth reading in full.)

UN Me begins by according us a few brief glimpses of the sheer sloth that characterizes the whole shebang. Old UN hands describe the short working days, long lunches, and frequent midday naps that characterize the everyday life of many of its functionaries. Wandering the halls of UN headquarters in New York shortly after 5 PM on a weekday, Horowitz … encounters a virtual ghost town: almost everybody has long since cleared out for the day. This institutional torpor is, he makes clear, emblematic of the whole worldwide enterprise. …

Horowitz reminds us that countries like Libya, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and China have sat on the UN Human Rights Commission – and, later, on the Human Rights Council that was meant to be an improvement on that comically corrupt agency.

In 2010, Iran was elected to the UN Commission on the Status of Women.

At one point in the film, Horowitz asks Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and director of the UN’s 2009 anti-racism conference in Geneva, why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, of all people, was named keynote speaker at that event. That question, she replies in a small voice, is “not for me to answer.” (No, you don’t get far at the UN by providing honest answers to reasonable questions like that one.)

Horowitz informs us that Article 6 of the UN Charter actually “calls for the expulsion of any nation that consistently violates the principles of the charter.” Yet no member country has ever been expelled under Article 6. Shashi Tharoor, UN information chief, cheerfully explains that it’s best to have everybody “under the same tent.” …

The  film covers some of the more egregious scandals involving UN peacekeeping …  anecdotes about peacekeepers in various countries who, in their interactions with the people they were there to protect, acted like thugs, got rich trafficking drugs, spent their time whoring, and sexually abused minors. Peacekeepers in the Congo committed literally thousands of rapes. At least one ran a pedophilia ring.

We’re shown video of UN bureaucrats solemnly vowing that errant peacekeepers will be caught and punished. But in fact almost no UN peacekeeper has ever been held accountable for anything.

In Côte d’Ivoire, peacekeepers actually fired on peaceful, unarmed protestors.

They were standing together, men women and children, singing happily when UN sharp shooters fired on them. One of the few times the “peacekeepers”  have actually used their arms.

But was anyone punished? No; that’s just not the UN way. When Horowitz, in a sit-down interview with Abou Moussa, head of the UN mission in Côte d’Ivoire, asks about the episode, Moussa gets up and leaves.

The film moves on to the absurdity that is the International Atomic Energy Agency – which, tasked with preventing nuclear-arms proliferation, has actually helped North Korea, Iran, India, and Pakistan to acquire nuclear technology, purportedly for peaceful purposes. Since, as the film notes, the IAEA can only perform inspections in countries that invite it to do so, it spends more than 80% of its $380 million annual budget inspecting facilities in – believe it or not – Germany, Japan, and Canada. …

Iran carries on towards making nuclear weapons. The UN and its agencies can do nothing about it, nor would if they could. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad is one of the most honored, ecstatically applauded gasbags in the UN General Assembly, he who has homosexuals hanged and women stoned to death. Ahmadinejad is the perfect personification of the spirit of the United Nations Organization.  

Then there’s terrorism. After 9/11, the UN passed Resolution 1373, which was supposedly designed to fight terrorism. It would appear to be as toothless a measure as was ever ratified by a deliberative body. Horowitz interviews Javier Ruperez, whose title is – get this – Executive Director of the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate of the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council. Asked what the committee actually does to fight terrorism, Ruperez speaks blandly of the production of reports. Member countries, you see, are asked to file reports indicating whether or not they’re aiding terrorists. The directorate, or committee, or whatever it is also sends inspectors for, oh, a week or so to various countries to find out whether anything fishy is going on there. None of this, of course, actually accomplishes anything. Asked whether the UN has official lists of terrorist groups and of countries that support terror, Ruperez says no: “This is not the practice of the UN.” …

Another question: how does the UN define terrorism? This, Ruperez declares, is still a “pending matter.” …

The UN will not define terrorism because the General Assembly is dominated by terrorism-sponsoring states.

Next up: the Oil for Food scandal – which, as Claudia Rosett, the top-notch UN expert and eloquent UN critic, tells Horowitz, was absolutely “designed to produce corruption.” Allegedly, the objective of the program was to provide food, medical supplies, and so forth to the Iraqi people in exchange for oil; in reality, a bunch of UN big shots, up to and including Security Council representatives … lined their pockets with kickbacks. But, again, the UN did nothing – it was, as Rosett says, “the biggest scam in the history of human relief,” but nobody was fired or jailed. As always, the UN proved that nothing could be more alien to its institutional culture than the idea of accountability.

The Rwanda genocide gets its own sad chapter in UN Me. The head of the UN peacekeepers in that country, General Romeo Dallaire, actually wanted to do the right thing. But when he asked Kofi Annan, then in charge of all UN peacekeeping forces, for authority to take relatively modest action to prevent a looming genocide, Annan said no. Why? Because it was more important to protect the UN’s “image of impartiality” than to protect people from genocide. UN forces were even ordered to withdraw from a school where they were the only thing standing between Tutsi refugees – many of them children and old people – and Hutus with machetes. Result: a brutal massacre for which – yet again – no UN personnel were punished.

Live footage of what happened there is one of the most heart-rending scenes in the film.

While this nightmare was unfolding in Rwanda, Boutros-Boutros Ghali, then secretary-general of the UN, was on a European tour, which he refused to cancel in order to deal with Rwanda.

He had urgently to attend a string of universities bestowing honorary degrees on him for being such a benefactor of mankind.

When he did return to New York, he denied that Tutsi were being exterminated. …  Horowitz and Groff even got Jean-Marie Guéhenno, former Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, on camera smoothly asserting that in the wake of the Rwanda genocide, it’s best not to “allocate the blame to one actor or the other.”

Horowitz also interviews Jody Williams, a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was invited by the UN to examine the situation in Darfur and who ended up livid at the UN’s palpable discomfort with her undiplomatic conclusions and its failure to act on her urgent recommendations. …

At film’s end, Horowitz and Graff pose a simple question: what, given all these unpleasant facts, does the UN stand for? The answer, alas, is clear. It stands for itself – period. Like many other pointless bureaucracies, it is about perpetuating its own existence and enhancing its own image – and about seeking to squelch the truth about its fecklessness, incompetence, and absolute lack of a moral compass. It’s also … about providing hack politicians from around the world with yet another career steppingstone, once they’ve risen to the top of the ladder in their own crummy little countries and finished emptying their own citizens’ pockets.

Please watch the film!

  • Jillian Becker

    Harold – 

    War is another thing. It frightens of course, but its purposes are far beyond that. It is possible, however, to distinguish acts of terrorism within war – for instance when the Nazis killed all the men and adolescent boys in a French village in reprisal for the assassination of a Nazi officer.  

    As for sonic booms, they happen (and I’ve heard many without being terrified). What violence do they threaten? 

    Now the Gazan groups that continually fire rockets at Israeli civilians, and the Palestinian suicide-bombers  – they are plainly terrorists.  

    All despotisms are terroristic.

    • Harold

      We can agree that the suicide bombers and rocketeers are plainly terrorists. 

      The sonic booms are created by warplanes, deliberately flown low over civilian areas.  I think this clearly carries the “threat” of violence as these planes carry missiles and bombs, and is intended to create fear.  I am not claiming that this is a terrorist act, but just that under the definition from the institute, there is an argument that it could be.

      The atrocities described by the Nazis could be described as a war crimes rather than terrorism.  I don’t kow what difference it makes in practice, but a separation of state actions or wartime actions by the military from individual civilian actions defined as terrorism may be useful.  I am not sure about this, as the clarity of the definition is clearly good, but the fact that it includes many things not “usually” thought of (by me and perhaps others)  may be a problem.  It may be an advantage of course.

      • Liz

        Complaining about being “terrorized” by sonic booms while at the same time targeting Israel with rockets and suicide bombers is business-as-usual for the Palestinians.  My heart bleeds. 

  • Harold

    How does the USA define terrorism?  I ask because a strict definition seems to be elusive.  It seems that no-one has yet acheived a workable definition that would not include some group that they favor as terrorists. 

    • George

      Dictionary definition : Terrorism —

      (1)                        The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce , especially for political purposes.
       (2)                       The state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

      Wikipedia definition :  Terrorism —-

                      The definition of terrorism has proved controversial . Various legal systems and government agencies use dufferent definitions.
                     In the international community however , terrorism has no universally agreed , legally binding , criminal law definition. Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror ) , are perpetrated for a religious , political or idealogical goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians) . The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged , and this greatly compounds the difficuulty of providing a precise defition.

      **********************************************************
       I hope this helps Harold.

    • Jillian Becker

      The definition used by The Institute for the Study of Terrorism, based in London, of which I was Director 1985 -1990, defined terrorism as; 

      “The systematic use of violence to create public fear”.

      It does not exclude any group that uses terrorism. We condemned all terrorism and all terrorists. 

      The official US definition of terrorism is: 
      “[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.”

      • Harold

        Jillian, George: thankyou. 
        The institute definition above is laudibly short and clear, but does not exclude, for example, state actions.   Definition 2 provided by George’s dictionary seems particularly useless. 

        The USA one generally looks OK, but, surely it cannot be that it can be illegal in any state?  What about states that have stupid laws?Apostacy is illegal in some states.  Does this mean USA State, rather than Nation State.   It also include the term “appears to be”, which is a bit vague. 

        The definition of terrorism is quite a difficult problem.  However, I am not suggesting that we should not recognise it when it is clear – as it is in most cases.

        • Jillian Becker

          The Institute’s definition does cover state action. It completely covers, for example, Stalin’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s and the three Kim Jongs of North Korea’s actions. It covers political, religious, and commercial terrorism (eg. Mafia).

        • George

          Harold , I didn’t assert what the usefullness of the dictionary or Wikipedia deefinition is or isn’t . I merely quoted what was therein for you or anyone else to make your own acceptance or rejection and/or evaluation—that’s all. 

        • George

          In addition to my previous reply— I have to agree regarding your assertion of “useless” because you don’t define a word by using the word itself  as a definition in itself and that was indeed what this  dictionary did and I caught that when I read it .  I just wanted to add that comment to my statement below.  Someone asked the question — ” Does this mean that a gang-banger who throws a marlotov cocktail onto a car or does a drive-by shooting into a home constitute terrorism ? ”  Suppose the gang member did it to promote his cause or agenda  and create fear in the community and towards the rival gang ?  Does that make it a form of terrorism since the goal was to instill fear or terror in people ? Just a thought that needs pondering.   

        • Harold

          George, I had not meant to imply that I thought you approved of the definition.  Your gang example illustrates the difficulty of a hard-and fast definition that includes all we want and does not cover things we don’t.  There must always be room for manouvre.

          Jillian,  I think many people would exclude certain state actions from terrorism, perhaps calling them something like war crimes, or crimes against humanity instead.  The Blitz would possibly be covered by terrorism under this definition, for example, and I think most people do not consider that terrorism.   Israel flying planes over the sound barrier and terrorising people with sonic booms may also be covered – depending on what is meant by violence and if the threat of violence in covered.  I am not saying this is the best definition, just indicating a difference of opinion.

        • George

                Harold  , again  I was unable to respond to our previous post directly beneth your comment —so I’ll post my response here. Harold you stated —  ” …. your GANG example illustrates the difficulty of a hard -and -fast definition that includes all we want and does cover things we don’t ”   
                          Harold  , first of all I do not have any “GANG”  nor do I support any “GANG” and can’t you ever post anything on here minus the SARCASM ? I merely posted a dictionary and internet “definition” for you to acccept or reject at will—-that’s  all. I also later stated that I agreed with you regarding  [ Example  # 2 that was illustrated  ].     Good grief Harold , get a grip here man !  I merely posted the two dictionary definitions  which also stated therin that it is a complex definition and many do not always accept the same definition monolithically —and this was stated explicitly in my post. Apparently you missed that altogether.  I NEVER posited myself in “lockstep” with either .  It was presented for your perusal  and your perogative to accept or reject at will—-[ no more and no less ].  Harold  , I personally perceive ( IMHO)  your commentaries to be more presented to be adversarial than to be in dialogue. If you disagree with a point , article, or point  Harold , then tha’s fine. Simply state why and make your point , but please leave the sarcasm and personal “jabs” out of it.  I had NO intent oof trying to persuade you or anyone else to accept ior reject anything regarding the definition— I only quoted what the definition stated in the two dictionary presentations —that’s all. 
                              If you agree then fine , and if you disagree then also fine. It doesn’t matter to me , as this was merely a reporting of what the dictionary “officially” –for the use of a better term defines it as.  Now if you have a different or  even better perception of this then you are free to present or express this and I have absolutely NO argument or detracting commentary to make in the matter whatsoever.  Can we just leave it at that  and more on with this . Thank you sir !

        • Harold

          Replying to George – it does become a bit diffficult to follow what one is relplying to.

          I was not accusing you of having anything to do with gangs, I was refering to your comment below:
          ” Suppose the gang member did it to promote his cause or agenda  and create fear in the community and towards the rival gang ?  Does that make it a form of terrorism since the goal was to instill fear or terror in people ?”

          This was the “gang example” I meant, illustrating that a strict definition is difficult.  Apologies for not making it clearer, perhaps with a quote.

        • George

          Harold , again I was unable to respond to your last post so as usual so I’m using another post position.  That’s the way the web-page is set up and won’t allow it.  The point that I was trying to get over was that in no way was I trying to persuade you to accept or reject any of the presented definitions that I posted  from the dictionary or  internet presentations. I merely quoted what was given and I posted this on the blog —no more and no less  for the reader to decide if they agree or disagree——–that’s all.   As far as the #2 defitition that you said you disagreed with—I also disagreed or rather took issue with that as well. The main problem that I had with THAT specific definition is that it attempted to define a word by using the actual word itself which is in itself counter-productive.  Have a good day sir.

  • rogerinflorida

    Yes, there are problems, however as I said in a previous reply to another post, international problems need international bodies to adjudicate and solve them. We are, partially because of the failure of the UN, which unfortunately looks more and more like it’s predecessor, The League of Nations, on the brink of nuclear war. Certainly without firm action from the international community there will be a nuclear war in the next decade. This war will start in the ME and may encompass the whole world. Reform of the UN is probably impossible at this point so it should be defunded by the United States and the major contributors and a new organisation set up that will insist on members respecting the Charter. That basically means that Russia, China, any Islamic country and all of Africa are out. The first work of the new organisation should be to set up a massive military capability with which to confront the evil.
    One of the very few positives about Christianity is that it provides a definition of evil, not misguided, or mischievous, or ill informed, but plain bloody evil. Thus I would describe the fascists who control China, the Russian oligarchy that basically has not changed in a thousand years and of course the totalitarian “religion” of islam.
    We need to prepare for the final confrontation, it will be fought with nuclear weapons and needs to be fought to the last dead enemy.
    You all have a nice day now, Y’hear!

    • George

      One of the problems I have with the whole situation Roger is that so many rogue nations are acquiring nuclear weapons —and the idea of nukes in the Middle East is a ticking time bomb disaster waiting to happen.   During the Cold War between the USA and the USSR , both had a nucear arsenal and other weapons of mass destruction but both nations knew that if one made a first strike nuclear assault , the other would be also anihilated as well .   It  was called  MAD  [ Mutually Assured Destruction ].  The Middle East couldn’t care about dying because they consider it an honor so therefore the threat of death is a welcomed treasure .  As such , such a position is NOT a deterrent to them but a welcome mat for martyrdom . Africa has been ravished by religious wackos entirely and the entire continent has been destroyed and recovery anytime SOON is hopeless unless we have a global organized national group with a spine and a massive set of testicles that will kick the zealots, tyrants and dictators out , but DON’T hold your breath as they say. A global nuclear war would devastate the entire planet and then we will be back to starting over or the few remaining smart individuals recovering from shelters will be starting over to rebuild what is left of civilization and then you still have a massive number of the crazed zealot surviving lunatics that will be out there as well. We will  back to the stone age  unless smart survivors start to replenish civilization. The thought alone is a nightmare for any civilized person.
                      What is even a more perplexing thought is that we may end up here in the USA with such an anti-American in office that will not use our weaponry for self defense but allow our open enemies to vanquish us. We are living in dangerous times and it’s getting worse–not better.  Still we have people and especially corrupt politicians that are asleep at the helm.  The entire situation is madness and insanity. The world may have PROGRESSED  technologically  and industrially , but morally and ethically we have REGRESSED.    

  • George

    The UN  [ Useless Neanderthals  ]  is a farce and a  sham .  Here we have an organization that allows nations run by dictators, tyrannts, and terrorists  and some that engage in abusive child labor, slavery, and the utmost violations of human rights  into their “fold”  and yet these scumbags proclaim to be the unifying body that is going to bring  ALL nations together in harmony and bliss.  Please excuse me while I barf—-  arrrrrrrrrrggghhhhh  !!!!.   There , that felt better.  As I was saying , the UN  [ Unfit Nut-cases ]  have been very anti-American in their nonsense rhetoric and yet  America  is the leading fiancier of that crappy and worthless organization.  They pander to despot nations and do not take an aggressive role to defend human rights, civil rights and stand up against mass murder , violence and chaos.  The UN  [ Ugly Nincompoops ] are about as useful as a tick on a dog.

  • Andrew M

    Model UN is vastly superior to the real UN.

    It makes anyone with half a brain realize how vain, effete, redundant, and cancerous the actual organization is.

    My advice to the US… don’t spawn its demon-child. You’re on top. Pull out of the Succubus already!

  • Liz

    Even with all their skill at demonizing capitalists to look sleazy, even Hollywood could not come up with a better caricature of the UN than what it already is in reality.
    Of course you will never find them attempting that, even though the UN is the worst offender in the history of the sleazy worthlessness department, and doesn’t even need any fictionalizing to appear in the worst possible light.
    Bravo for these documentary makers!