69 million page views

Manipulating the U. N. is Unconstitutional

Reader comment on item: Blame the UN's Power on George H.W. Bush

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.

Submitting....

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".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (31) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
revolutions have nothing to do with democracy [235 words]calhouniteApr 10, 2012 10:11195050
Disband this money sucking monstrosity [104 words]danariFeb 23, 2012 00:42193574
Americans the British and the UN [1349 words]Martin HoranMay 31, 2012 08:31193574
The toothless U.N. [68 words]saraFeb 14, 2012 18:53193374
8Democracies and their undemocratic allies [524 words]IanusFeb 13, 2012 18:38193356
American Democracy Can No Longer Be Exported - Cannot Export What One Does Not Have [561 words]M. ToveyFeb 16, 2012 14:30193356
3When you can't export democracy because you don't have it,then you export what you have, e.g. oligarchy or Wahhabism [519 words]IanusFeb 17, 2012 16:07193356
A Rebuttal [394 words]Pied PiperFeb 25, 2012 18:00193356
2A rebuttal of the rebuttal [1095 words]IanusFeb 25, 2012 19:48193356
The Battle of the Rebuttals [519 words]Pied PiperMar 3, 2012 16:43193356
2How many witches have been recently beheaded in the US ? [551 words]IanusMar 4, 2012 06:44193356
Ibi Erit Fletus et Stridor Dentium [135 words]Pied PiperMar 6, 2012 12:53193356
2Malleus maleficarum Arabicus [646 words]IanusMar 6, 2012 23:14193356
Cutting One's Teeth on Biblical Translations [208 words]M. ToveyMar 8, 2012 17:36193356
Ego Sum Princeps Arabicus et Super Grammaticam [191 words]Pied PiperMar 11, 2012 16:05193356
So - Not in Latin Then [681 words]M. ToveyMar 12, 2012 19:09193356
1Manipulating the U. N. is Unconstitutional [886 words]M. ToveyFeb 13, 2012 12:03193351
Thanks for source of UN power and Question [105 words]Dr Bryan PoulinFeb 10, 2012 14:05193278
2We cannot put Sanctity of All Lives on the back burner in the U.N. [65 words]Michael Hanni MorcosFeb 11, 2012 23:14193278
Toothless [316 words]AEBFeb 10, 2012 14:04193277
permanent organizations and UN authority [127 words]mythFeb 9, 2012 12:56193251
4Won't "an organization of only democratically-elected governments" be the accuser,the judge and the executioner in one person? [568 words]IanusFeb 9, 2012 11:42193248
Follow that Light [40 words]Jay1Feb 8, 2012 19:58193228
That Light? It Needs to be Relit First. [370 words]M. ToveyFeb 9, 2012 18:52193228
2The UN a shameful organization [495 words]NuritGFeb 8, 2012 16:43193219
Hey UN.Go away already. [94 words]batya daganFeb 8, 2012 16:39193218
Worthless Trash= The U.N. [8 words]Sandra DeeOct 24, 2014 11:25193218
A man can always turn around if he finds he's gone in the wrong direction. [1 words]Abu NudnikFeb 8, 2012 11:18193202
UN power goals [105 words]lily flacksFeb 8, 2012 05:30193193
2How many times did George H W Bush utter the phrase 'new world order'? Too many, but few had a clue.... [39 words]Adina Kutnicki, IsraelFeb 8, 2012 05:25193192
an observation [293 words]Peter HerzFeb 18, 2012 22:44193192

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Manipulating the U. N. is Unconstitutional by M. Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)