Free Markets, Free People


UN no longer content with role?

Not that its “role” has been much more than a third-world debating club to this point, but apparently it is tired of that and wants to move on to a more glorious and important role.  That’s per George Russell reporting at Fox News.  Russell reports that UN Sec Gen Ban ki-Moon and about 60 of his top lieutenants spend the Labor Day weekend at a resort in Austria plotting their takeover of the world. Talk about "mission creep".

Here’s what he was able to glean from the “position papers” that were used at the meeting and what they included:

– how to restore “climate change” as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit;

– how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;

– how to keep growing U.N. peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife-torn countries;

– how to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;

– how to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the U.N. calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support U.N. agendas.

Of course the biggest problem that faces the UN in each of those areas is that old anachronism, at least in the UN’s view – national sovereignty.   Each of the above would require severe weakening of national sovereignty and, frankly, that’s what the UN would like to see. 

That’s because the UN sees itself as the “go to” organization for global governance, which it obviously feels is “the next step” in the utopian evolution of man.

Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

This is an organization so inept it can’t carry on a proper peace keeping mission and so corrupt it gives organized crime a bad name.  This is the same organization that has included Libya on the Human Rights Commission and whose peace keepers have been cited for cases of rape and child molestation, and stood by doing nothing while Hezbollah rearmed itself in Lebanon. 

Yet it feels it could handle the role of global governor and chief of wealth redistribution.  And that, of course, would start with their primary potential cash cow – climate change:

Rolling just about every U.N. mantra into one, the paper declares that “nothing is more crucial to preventing run-away climate change than lifting billions out of poverty, protecting our planet and fostering long-term peace and prosperity for all.”

And to do that, the paper suggests, equally dramatic shifts in political power may be needed. “Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”

Not only that – a little behavior modification might be in order:

“The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”

And, of course, as you might imagine, the foregone conclusion of each of these position papers is the UN is the organization best suited to take on the job of global governance:

“At the practical level, through the U.N. system we have all kinds of expertise and capacities, even if not adequate resources, to actually do something,” the paper notes.

Really?  Can anyone point to a system anywhere, to include our own governmental system, which is more inept, corrupt or unable to do much of anything it was chartered to do?  Is that anyone who actually believes that nation-states are going to willingly give up their sovereignty to a group of bureaucrats who’ve demonstrated neither “expertise” nor “capacities” to do much of anything but waste money?

And speaking of money, that’s part of the plan as well:

It is “urgent to secure U.N. participation” at regular meetings of the G-20 finance ministers and their deputies,” according to one of the papers, a group that the U.N. Secretariat, based in New York City and Geneva, does not interact with very much.

Why?

“The much paraded reform of financial governance institutions has not gone far enough,” the position paper for the U.N. leadership’s keynote session asserts, and the voting power of emerging players and developing world, in general, which demand a greater say on these matters, remains inadequate.”

The answer? “An enhanced political will is clearly needed to avoid return to status quo, to push forward regulatory mechanisms, and improve financial governance.”

Or, said another way, the third world demands a seat at the table and a say in how the first world handles its money – and, most likely how it is to be redistributed. 

The group also see peace keeping as a means of nation building UN style:

In essence, as another paper observes, the U.N. peacekeeping effort is transforming into a new kind of supervisory organism in which not only conflicts but also national institutions and cultures must be regulated for longer and longer periods of time.

“Even where a semblance of stability is achieved,” the paper by Ban’s peace-building support office argues, the achievement of peace may involve more than “adopting a constitution or holding elections.” It adds that “more fundamental change may be needed in a country’s institutions and political culture as well as in public perceptions and attitudes.”

It was quite a meeting if the position papers were any indication.  How much if any of the agenda will see the light of day much less be achieved is anyone’s guess.  But the fact remains those are the ambitions of the UN leadership today.  The problem is I have no confidence that the administration now in place in the US wouldn’t look favorably at much of what is outlined above.  That, of course, would be disastrous – both to the US and the world.

(HT: papajj)

~McQ

[tweetmeme service="bit.ly" hide_in_rss="true" only_single="false"]
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

29 Responses to UN no longer content with role?

  • *sigh*

    I’ll go get the guns…

  • Ironically, the biggest impediment to the UN is China and India, while the US Left is content to “bend over.”

    • This whole thing with the UN is a throwback to Medieval Times, the whole “castles and kings thing.”
      Did you ever notice that when people talk of Medieval Times that they always envision themselves as the king, queens, princes and princesses.  Have you ever hear anyone say they long to be a “serf” ? Even once ?
      Everyone always assumes the “next government” will be better, with them on top, of course.

      • … and it’s true … if you believe in unicorns and a “free lunch”

      • Though, for the UN bureaucrats, they would be in power.  Or would they? Once the UN had actual power would it attract different people?

  • Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges, but the U.N. can, is a major theme of the position papers, which were assembled by a variety of U.N. think tanks, task forces and institutions, including the United Nations Development Program, and the U.N.’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs.

    We should have left this thugocracy years…if not decades…ago.  They have no credibility; without us they have no POWER.  And I’m with Scott.  There really will be an armed insurrection in the U.S. if someone tried to lead us down…or whip us down…that road.
    As the line from the popular movie goes, “GET OFF MY LAWN!”.  Get this nest of mad vipers OFF our territory, and out of our pockets.

    • Withdrawing from the UN and kicking them out of New York is yet another issue that the Republicans could pick up and run with if they had savvy and guts. Among the people I talk to, from all walks of life, no one outside the political class has any use for the UN. They don’t like us supporting an organization that appears dedicated to bringing us down.

      Of course, we could easily lose count of the issues the clueless establishment Republicans could embrace and win with if they tried: government spending, government debt, illegal immigration, taxes too high and too complex… 

      On second thought, I’m being unfair to call them clueless. Because all of those issues – all of them – are also issues that directly impact the fortunes of the political class. Those establishment Republicans, as I have drearily stated too many times, consistently side with the interests of the political class in which they hold membership, and  against their own base and the citizens at large.

      • Apparently, Hillary Clinton’s theme at the CFR the other day is the “US doing less.”
        Perhaps the next time the UN building needs a major refub, they should just move it  to a more neutral side .. like Beirut.   I hear the shopping is really great there, just like New York.

      • “Kicking the UN out” is a hard sell. Better to claim its for the good of the world for the UN to move to a less developed country. Its unfair for the USA to hog all of the resources the UN brings to the local community.
        That’s how you sell it.

        • I won’t argue with your suggested sales technique, but I challenge the notion that

          “Kicking the UN out” is a hard sell.

          Outside the left and the political class, I don’t think it’s a hard sell at all. And the political class is never going to buy into any rationale that’s put forth.

          • Nah, I think there are many voters like my mom who think the UN is “nice.” I would call them low information voters, but that’s my Mom were talking about…

      • Withdrawing from the UN and kicking them out of New York is yet another issue that the Republicans could pick up and run with if they had savvy and guts.

        And if they had that savvy and guts they’d lose election after election. American voters don’t like things to be too radical, though they do like to complain that politicians don’t have guts….

        • And if they had that savvy and guts they’d lose election after election. American voters don’t like things to be too radical…

          Tell that to the ghost of “government is the problem, not the solution” Ronald Reagan. Or the guys who won in 1994 on the back of the Contract With America. Let’s see how many of those “radicals” win this time around.

          I firmly believe, based on historical evidence, that there are enough people who believe in those limited government sentiments to run on them. Especially when the those principles show results: Reagan won 48 states in 1984. Then the Republicans stupidly turned their back on limited government principles, and the voters concluded, rightly, that they were just hacks no better than the Democrats.

          Some Republicans figured that out and swept Congress in 1994. They didn’t follow through, eventually became assimilated into the Beltway collective, and again the voters concluded they were hacks no better than the Democrats, and maybe even worse.

          The only thing Republicans have going for them right now is that the voters have concluded that they are certainly not worse than Democrats. That’s not a foundation for long-term governance. It’s a foundation for muddling along until the financial house of cards collapses.

          So, even if you might be right and running on strong principles is a risk, it’s still the right thing to do to firmly espouse the principles that can lead us out of our mess. Winning with squishy establishment Republicans has the double whammy of not doing anything to solve our problems and pre-empting the slots for those who would do something. At best, it delays the inevitable outcome of out-of-control government.

        • It would not be radical at all if the case were made properly.  Most people now have NO idea who sits on the various counsels and what a dark, filthy joke they are.
          We need the UN out, and we need to shift to a new organization composed of democratic republican nations.

  • The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.

    If this mentioned hanging Dick Cheney as a war criminal, it would be the ultimate lefty masturbatory material.

    Seriously.  Most of us are horrified by what the UN has in mind, but it is very much in line with lefty policies pretty much around the world.  Yep, a firm (sometimes even heavy) hand is needed to put the world on the right path, one in which war becomes impossible, the poor grow rich, and the environment is kept pristine because the right people ensure that all the greedy capitalists (including the so-called “middle class” with their rapacious, consumerist ways) are kept in check and even reeducated so that they understand that their mad chase after money is the cause of all the world’s ills.  Ah, what a bucolic future we face under the UN!  Our lives will be soooo much better once we are no longer in charge of them!

  • How many aircraft carriers does the UN have again?

  • What are we going to do tonight Ban? Try and take over the world, Barrack.
     

  • “Hammering away at perceptions that nation-states cannot adequately meet global challenges…”
    I had no idea child prostitution and absolute corruption on a global scale, were “challenges” in need of being met?

    • Find a “free lunch” is always a challenges.  The UN is world HQ for those in search of a “free lunch.”

  • These fellows think like me. I’ve also been warning about the consumerist culture that is just destroying our society, just destroying it. You dense righties simply don’t understand that it’s not right for you to be spending so much money on video games and widescreen TVs. We should be giving it to the wise, good-hearted, ultra-competent agencies at the UN, where they would be solving the problem of world hunger, and they most certainly would not be using the money and resources to foster child prostitution for UN personnel, no sir. I decree it. Anything else you hear is just propaganda.

    Of course the UN needs a bigger role in world affairs. Otherwise, odious people like Bush have way too much influence and can start wars that kill people and stuff. Which is awful because wars are just icky. If the UN had had more control, Bush would have been forced to leave Saddam in power, which would have been oh so much better for everyone. And don’t start up with the corrupt UN oil-for-food program, just don’t start! I’m sure it wasn’t as bad as it sounded, and besides most of the benefit went to wise leftists who had nice things to say about Saddam and the UN.

    Besides, the UN decision makers give respect to wise leftist academicians, and they understand how to treat those sterile, inbred, mindless climate change denialists. Yes, sir. Like the ex-military basket cases around here.

    Can’t you guys just stop for one moment and hear what you are saying? Abolish the UN? Horror of horrors! Where would leaders of noble brown savage countries go to air their grievances? Where could we all, from lots of different backgrounds and cultures, sit down and work out grand solutions to all our problems?

    Because, as I’ve explained to you guys a hundred times, that’s the only way we’re going to get out of our current mess – sit down and explain our positions and both sides respect each other and compromise. That way, we could continue our journey to leftist utopia, but you dense rightie reactionaries would have input on the process, and we might throw a few bones to you to make you feel better. Plus some condescending little head pats about how reasonable you are.

    Then, of course, you need to to crawl back under the rock you climbed out from under. While we leftists get on with the important decisions, of course. Such as providing universal healthcare, which is a moral right, no matter how much you dense righties have to work and pay to provide it to the rest of us.

    • Over Here Boys !!  Ott Scerb is burning a Quran !!

      Let’s see how long it takes them to ignore your “Quest for Compromise”

  • Want the UN to leave the US? Remove their exemption from paying parking tickets and paying US taxes. They will move out of the US in a month.