Friday, January 4, 2019

The UN


The UN

By: Kevin Drummond

The UN is a legislative form of symposium which is divided into two major bodies, the General Assembly, and the Security Council. There are a number of other organs within the body, including the International Court, and the UN Trusteeship, but these bodies generally act in deference to the larger purposes of the General Assembly, or the Security Council. 

The many organs of the UN are founded to serve the Charter of the United Nations, and are carefully adherent to the sensitivity of being a broad spectrum of analysis, which must often contend with very narrow aspects of conflict resolution. It could be said that this holds the largest heading of legitimate criticisms of the UN: it is a microcosm of effort, saddled with the often monumental task of finding common ground in a very diverse world. 
These are the five major organs of the UN. There are also a number of agencies overseen by the UN.


Its regime structure is often viewed as, "hesitant", with more vocal critics, most notably, President Donald Trump, accusing the international organization of being outright dysfunctional, and biased. The Somalia intervention is a case considered by many to demonstrate the flaws in how slowly action was undertaken. 

By the time the UN began protecting its aid shipments and personnel with troops, the intensity of the combat situation had greatly magnified, resulting in a total and catastrophic failure to achieve the humanitarian goals that were attempted in the Somalia case. This also profoundly affected future Sec General of the UN, Kofi Annan.

As first, the Balkans, and then, the Iraqi issues chugged their ways through the regime of the UN, in slow fashion, Annan himself took steps that remain controversial. These measures, while meaning well, have caused an international split of opinion about both interventions. 

Meant to hasten the outcome, and not repeat the lessons of Somalia, Annan invoked the Jus ad bellum clause of the UN Charter, and then asked President Clinton, during a personal visit, to order NATO to begin its mission to defend UN workers and humanitarian aid supplies in the Balkans.

Jus ad Bellum is a writ within the UN Charter allowing the enforcement of an international decree without vote in the event of an emergency. This move, and not convening a specific binding resolution in regards to Serbia, still sparks debate as to whether or not the UN violated the law in petitioning the NATO bombings of Serbia. 

Factually, each of the packets of multiple binding resolutions issued in regards to the Yugoslav Civil War actually already contained sections promising military defense of aid supplies and UN personnel. But, to this day, the debate centers around whether or not the UN needed to vote to enact the measures. They did not. This has led some to conclude, incorrectly, that the bombing of Serbia occurred illegally. However, the Jus ad bellum clause was specifically designed into the UN Charter for just such an emergency.

In the Case of Iraq, Annan did not enact enough advocacy for peace because he believed the lies told in the US Case For War, and he believed them without question. In convening the Blix Report, which was to give an 11th hour update to the Weapons Inspections in Iraq, Annan enacted an underwhelming effort to stop a war that violates the UN Charter.

Still, a large number of conspiracy theories have sprung up surrounding the UN, and some of the UN's regime characteristics have contributed to those concerns. One that comes to mind immediately is the way that confusing diplomatic affairs are almost always accompanied by tons of paperwork, and often what appears to some to be absurd subjects that require even more forms. 

This redundancy evokes fear from people who are concerned with the UN being able to conceal an evil intention within those volumes of paperwork, and by possibly using a code not generally used, nor understood, by the general public.

The UN has little flexibility to address these concerns that stem from its regime structure, however, thus contributing to the ongoing controversy surrounding it.


Delegations of Authority


The way the UN addresses issues, and the way it decides which body (ies) within the organization will address which issues, as well as how they may choose do so, is the result of design, trial, error, evolution, and necessity. 

But, the usage of votes, abstentions, and vetoes is consistent, beginning with October 24, 1945, the date that the UN was founded.

The two bodies, the General Assembly, and the Security Council, address issues based upon whether or not a given problem requires a binding resolution, or a non-binding resolution.
Basically, a binding resolution requires a dynamic solution, which could run the range (as far as the UN is concerned) from an ongoing debate, to the convention of military force, or any measure of combining the two. But, a non-binding resolution refers to those solutions that are never going to become permanently attached to the UN Charter. 

Non binding resolutions are one-off types of conflict resolutions, and are almost always the operating purpose of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Binding resolutions may involve changes that permanently affect the international picture, in one way or another. 
Since these issues are dynamic, the Binding Resolution arm of the UN is the Security Council. Their actions are convened by the Secretary General of the United Nations, or the General Assembly refers an issue for binding resolution, which is then handled by the Fifteen Nations of the Sec Council via a vote, a veto, or an abstention.

In the case of a binding resolution, since action is presumably going to be mandatory, each one of the five permanent members carries the power to override even an otherwise unanimous vote by veto. Vetoing a binding resolution halts the issue from evolving, and very often, keeps issues in limbo. 

Most historically, the Two-State Solution in Palestine remains paralyzed by the veto of the United States. For 51 votes in 65 conventions, the United States' veto has permanently injured relations between the nations of the world, and perhaps justifiably provoked great cynicism in regards to both the US, and the UN, from the victims of the Zionist State's atrocities in Palestine.




When a member of the Sec Council abstains from a vote, that abstention has no effect on the final tally. Should four of five vote, "yes", and the fifth member, abstain, it is still considered a unanimous, "yes" vote.




The composition of the Security Council of the UN (UN Sec Council) consists of five permanent members, who have veto powers, and ten temporary members, who have similar powers during their two year terms as temporary members.
The Five Permanent Members of the UN Sec Council are China, Russia, The US, UK, and France. 

The complicated nature of international affairs is not the only element drawing the suspicion of the critics of the UN. 

The indefinite, and illusory relationship between ultra liberal progressivism, and UN Departments, as well as how those relationships may dictate how the various organs within UN relate to theoretical academic solutions to real problems, like hunger, disease, overpopulation, and these kinds of very real human issues, also provokes absolute fear from the general public.

There are, however, regulations that prevent many of these conspiracies from being successful. (Note that I did not say, "Real." These could easily be real.)

But in order for the functional parts of most conspiracies involving the United Nations to realize even measured levels of success, each legislative body of each member state of the UN would be required to ratify the act.

The UN has no army. It depends on its members for that kind of power. Most nations have very narrow guidelines over where, and how their armed forces, or groups of armed forces, may be deployed. If the UN were to decide to invade and place a small portion of the United States under its own martial law, then the US, and the State in which this was to take place, would be required to pass exclusive legislation both budgeting the acts, and defining the acts. 

But then, the General Assembly of the UN would be required to debate the other details....
Therefore, if the conspiracy theory accounts for this, as well as the fact that legally, it would qualify as An Act of Congress (in the United States): then there may be some truth in the elements of any of these given conspiracies.

Without an itemized list of each one, however, which isn't really why I'm covering the UN, the validity of most of them is disputable based upon the mandatory involvement of the US Congress in the United States, Parliament in the UK, etc. 

Other avenues of conspiracy, like National Security Study Memorandum 200, have been woven into the general distrust of the UN, though they bear a very cursory, almost non-existent association with the UN.

ln NSSM 200, the Secretary of State for Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, outlined a plan to allegedly starve third world nationals in order to prevent their turning to Communism for relief. Some of the conclusions he reached are alleged to have come from sources and data compiled by the UN. Therefore, a lingering association, although a truly hard-to-connect to being a real association to the UN, continues to attribute the NSSM 200 to a plan to perpetrate true malice upon the citizens of the US, and the world, via the UN.

The NSSM 200 was not a UN act, nor was Kissinger restricted from attributing population censuses, crop expectations, climatological data, and other publicly available data from the data already collected by the UN, on a regular, and ongoing basis.

The NSSM 200 was an embarrassment to the Nixon Administration, however, which may account for the reasons that it vanished from the headlines.

But, an unusual number of conspiracies revolving around the UN do reference the NSSM 200 at some level. This may be simply a case of a citation-already-in-precedence, as opposed to any real conspiracy.

The United Nations & Imminent Domain

The term Imminent Domain (I D) is a legal term that refers to the seizure of property by a government, or other regional authority. The first cases of imminent domain involved land that abutted chapels in pre-Reformation Europe, and even then, I D drew scorn and hostility from the landowners.

Abutted properties still subject to I D are roads, highways, etc, which fall within a very well-defined group of regulations for both when, and how a city, county, state, or federal authority can seize any given property.

The UN has absolutely zero I D powers. Any sort of racket involving individuals within the US Government, and the UN, would be acting under the Government of the United States, and not the UN, and there are a variety of reasons for this.

  1. The UN has no authority to invoke I D.
  2. The UN has no army, nor contracting office dedicated to the acquisition and maintenance of lands, outside of those either donated to the UN, or those administered by binding resolutions and then placed under the administration of the UN Trusteeship Council.
  3. The UN has no rights in the United States to name any party as a respondent, or a defendant without conforming to jurisdictional protocol requirements, and obtaining counsel. The DA's of the US do not grant the UN special access.
  4. The UN has no office to coordinate maintaining territories presumably seized through an act of I D.
  5. Any act of I D by the UN against any individual in the United States would be subject to the armed defense of that property by the owner(s).
And, this list is admittedly incomplete. 

The role of I D in the majority of theories about the malicious intentions of the UN is ubiquitous. However, as ubiquitous as it is, the fact that the UN just cannot do anything even remotely similar to this, remains standing. 

Not that there aren't people whom would.... As with many of the concerns about the UN: either a citizen's government, or the UN, itself, or a combination of the two would make the event extraordinary...if not, very unlikely.


Agenda 21 is a non-binding, eco, earth-friendly plan which consolidates a number of international agreements focusing on the preservation of natural resources on a global scale. There are a large number of people whom insist that, in reality, Agenda 21 is a complicated depopulation scheme that involves mass exterminations of people in every nation.

As an effort at genocide, events, such as the California wildfires, annual events resulting from the culmination of the Santa Anna Winds, and the California dry season, and their often apocalyptic looking pictures, have often been put forth as evidence of the sinister intentions of the personalities behind Agenda 21.
Backburning, an example of which is seen here, can be done by hand, or in large scale and coordinated airborne deployments


The starting of back fires, the laser designators mounted on water-asset aircraft, even CGI enhanced pieces of footage are just a few of the types of misidentified evidence of the substantial threat that Agenda 21 is to humanity.

These types of theories cannot be contested by logic because they aren't based in logic. 
Laser? Directed Energy Weapons? When laser designators determine a distance, the invisible beam is deactivated, and colored light beams follow. However, it is at the insistence of some that the UN is using Agenda 21 to remove people from their homes, and then, they vanish. Insurance payouts would dismiss this, but, there is no way to ease these concerns.


The annual California fires date back centuries, and as society encroaches deeper into forested areas, casualty counts are bound to rise as those whom choose to shelter in place, rather than evacuate: do so at their own peril. Otherwise, the usage of short film clips depicting the deployment of incendiary material as evidence that the UN is actually starting the fires also suffers from a deficit of understanding about who funds the UN, and, where the UN might find DARPA weapons to use against us that the US doesn't have, already.

In the case of UN versus US: the fear of Agenda 21 doesn't define why the US would permit its resources to be acquired by the UN. This is a case where logical application of conspiracy should dismiss UN and Agenda 21 specifically due to the fact that the US doesn't want competition.

But, this isn't an attempt to ridicule the theory. It is an effort at presenting at least a few reasons why the theory isn't a solid one. 




Criticisms That Remain

The fact that the regime of the United Nations could not prevent a unanimous vote to invade Iraq from going forth, in spite of the common knowledge that the Case For War Against Iraq was known to be based in lies, even while it was being presented to the Joint Assembly of the UN, stands far and above as conclusively demonstrating that the UN is either ineffective, negligent, sinister, or a little bit of all three descriptions.

The predecessor to OPCW, Unscom, the UN agency in charge of monitoring Iraq, and the Hussein Government, to ensure its compliance with the UN Binding Resolutions that ordered, then verified that all of its WMD's were indeed, destroyed, had enjoyed nearly a decade of unhindered access to the weapons that Iraq had. Unscom chief, Scott Ritter, testified before Congress that ReBush had engaged a snowjob at the UN, and was launching a human tragedy that made the US dangerously close to requiring international action against it.

But the thirst for blood was not to be quenched in logic. For that, the UN has been accused of being useless, or worse, complicit in the war crimes.
Either way, this is proof that maybe the UN has too much authority to permit tragedies, and not enough to prevent them.

For its part, the chief weapons inspector for the UN, Hans Blix, was tasked with writing a report that updated the UN as to whether or not The Case For War, and its ridiculous allegations, remained true over the next months that followed the February 5, 2003 Joint Assembly. The Blix Report, and its total loss to explain how ReBush's evidence, like, "Iraqi scientists were really spies, trained to deceive UN inspectors..." even passed the laugh test, and still was somehow cited by ReBush as, "proof I am right!"

Blix had not gone far enough to insist that the Case for War was faked, in spite of going on American television in the late Spring of 2003, after the murderous atrocities began, and declaring as much, in person.
Hans Blix interviewed on American television, June 5, 2003.

The ineffectiveness of the Blix Report as a preventative measure to the inane and bloodthirsty 2003 US invasion of Iraq stands, tall and true, as a prime example of why the UN just isn't working.

Otherwise, the UN's ability to evolve is hindered by the necessity for either a precedent, complete with possible tragedy, or the original architects of the UN Charter having already anticipated each, and every possible situation that potentially may inspire international conflict....

Another criticism to which we alluded, earlier, was how the veto works in regards to permitting the atrocities committed by Israel to continue. In a democracy, majority rules. But, in the UN, NOT changing is the objective.
So, when a veto is issued, it tends to historically preserve war crimes, not deter their commission.

And this, too, remains a legitimate criticism of the UN, in fact, the all-powerful veto is the number one criticism of the UN shared by those who work within it.


Conclusion

There is a necessity for an international organization exclusively reserved for the prevention of war and the peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, the damage dealt by the ReBush (and Obama) era abuses of the UN we have, today, has pretty much launched a set of consequences which have sent power Eastward for the first time, ever, and this is going to rewrite the role of the US in the world, in general.

Before much more damage is done, a new, and updated international organization needs to be convened, and in that body, the veto mistake, and the Two State Solution being in limbo, should be immediately examined and corrected.

And, the US should either accept that ReBush destroyed our country, or that we have a lot of work, a lot of apologies, and a lot of humble pie to eat in order to preserve our place among the nations who will be happy to write madness, like Post WW2 Zionist America, and its hypocrisy, right out of the Book of Things That Matter.

The idea of a UN is a good one, all in all.
We have a president, today, who works. 
Maybe it's time we got a UN that did, too.

Either way: the people of Palestine, Gaza, Golan, etc, have all seen enough agony to testify for years to come: we need a new UN. A non Zionist UN.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Why Obama's Rating Didn't Matter And Trump's Will

Trump's rating has surpassed Obama's, at the point in time corresponding to Obama's bid for re-election. But, Trump is stil...