How do you know that something is good? Well, the best way to know, is to assess what it represents and decide if on the whole, it stands for what's good more than it does for what's bad. If it does, you anoint it. If it doesn't, you say it leaves much to be desired.
But if you cannot make a full
assessment, and you need to make a preliminary or expedient decision, you can
state that indications exist which point to the goodness or naughtiness of the
thing. And you spell out what that is, giving as much details as you have.
We find ourselves in this
position, having to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the United Nations
(UN). In reality, however, we have enough empirical observations of the UN's
performance to pass judgment, one way or the other. But because there is
enormous push-back to what we might say, we include into our assessment of the
UN, the views we have developed of those who attack it.
To that end, there are two articles
you may consult to make a just assessment of the UN’s performance. The latest
came under the title: “The UN's Unhappy Birthday,” written by Richard N. Haass,
and published on September 10, 2020 in Project Syndicate. The other article
came under the title: “The United Nations Prepares for a Somber 75th
Anniversary,” written by Stewart Patrick, and published on August 17, 2020 in
World Politics Review.
As you read that article, you
develop the view that the current dysfunction of the UN, emanates from the
rivalry that has flared between America, the dominant Alpha world-leader which
is now in decline, and China, the inevitably rising Alpha leader who may not
openly challenge America, but is seen as a threat by the latter, causing it to
behave strangely out of an irrational fear.
If you find this too
primordial, and find that it makes humanity look like it is sliding back into
the Stone Age, and you want to know why, you'll find the answer in the Richard
Haass article. In fact, the answer comes as a conclusion summarizing what he
believes went wrong over the decades, and what needs to be done to rectify the
situation. The following is how it reads:
“The General Assembly, the
most democratic and representative of the UN's structures, lacks teeth and is
rendered ineffectual insofar as every country has one vote, regardless of its
size, population, wealth, or military might. We face multiple global challenges
for which there are no unilateral answers. Countries can create alternatives,
such as the G-7 and G-20. Coalitions of the relevant, willing, and able can
come together. The case for multilateralism and global governance is stronger
than ever. But, for better or worse, it will have to take place outside the
UN”.
So, there you have it, my
friend. It is a neocon manifesto for the world, asking: Democracy? What
democracy? It goes on to explain that this is the game we play to entertain
ourselves when we're at home. But when we're on the global stage, the wisdom of
an Ethiopian doctor cannot be considered equal to that of a New York real
estate developer. It is the natural order of things that no matter how
uninformed the American mogul may be, his word trumps that of the highly
educated Ethiopian. This is a brand-new democracy for a “Brave New World”.
For this reason, says Richard
Haass, a multilateral setup such as the United Nations must be dismantled or
ignored. In its stead, Haass reiterates what the neocons have been advocating
for decades. It is to create smaller groupings such as the G-7 and G-20, packed
with handpicked members that will not speak their mind or speak for humanity,
but speak the gospel of the self-styled gods that created them.
Since it all comes down to
that, it would be a good idea to look back at how the G-7 and G-20 came to be,
and decide if there is enough seriousness in the process to do what Haass and
company want to do, which is to demolish the UN that kept the peace for seven
and a half decades, and replace it with a process we could never trust once we
know enough about it.
It was during the decade of
the Seventies that 3 of the permanent 5 on the Security Council came together
and talked about forming an alliance that will maintain the world economy in a
healthy state. They were the US, Britain and France that deliberately kept
Russia and China out of the group. By the time they finished discussing the
plan, they had seen the need to add two more industrial giants to it. They
chose Germany and Japan.
That is how the group of 3
became the group of 5 or G-5. Meanwhile, rebel at heart but always dreaming of
playing in the big league with the big boys, Canada's then Prime Minister,
Pierre Elliott Trudeau demanded that Canada be included in the group since it
had a GDP big enough to qualify. Maybe so, but there was a small problem. It
turned out that Italy had a bigger GDP than Canada. This meant that instead of
a G-6, they should invite Italy into the group, and have a G-7. That's what
happened in fact, but then came the fiasco of adding Russia to make it a G-8,
and then subtracting Russia, and then the talk to re-invite Russia.
As to the history of the G-20,
its development was even more sullen than that. For a reason that can only be
thought of as prophetic, the French President at the time had foreseen that
Egypt was destined to become a great economic power. And so, he started to work
on including Egypt into the G-7. This move so alarmed the Jews of North
America, they looked around to see what they could do to derail the effort.
They found a way to do it at a
time when election day was approaching in Canada, and two factions of the
Liberal Party were vying to have their man win the race and become the next
Prime Minister. The Jews approached one of the candidates and asked him to work
on forming the G-20 that will derail the work done by the French, thus keep
Egypt out of the G-7. In return, the Jews promised to get their man elected,
which they did but was tossed out after a little more than two years in office.
Now I ask you this, my friend: Is this a process that is so kosher, Richard Haass is correct for wanting to demolish the UN and see that process decide the fate of humanity? Would you risk your well-being to give that screwy process a try?