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 United Nations & Imminent Domain
- The UN has no authority to invoke I D.
- 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.
- 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.
- The UN has no office to coordinate maintaining territories presumably seized through an act of I D.
- 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).
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.
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
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.