« A bloggy week | Main | What can you do in 15 seconds? »

Sunday, March 02, 2008

As useful as teats on a boar hog

The title of today's post, (along with its folksy cousin; "As useful as a milk bucket under a bull"), are both excellent examples of statements intended to convey the same meaning; complete and utter uselessness.   

Therefore, it would be an obtuse observer that didn't know already that this post is about the UN. 

But don't click way yet... this isn't a typical anti-UN tirade bemoaning the organization's blatant anti-Israel agenda. 

It isn't about the fact that the UN security council hasn't been able to find time on its schedule for years to deal with the relentless rocket attacks (and other assaults) on Israeli civilian communities/sovereignty... yet they were able to convene an emergency session on a Saturday night in order to roundly condemn Israel's [long-overdue] "disproportionate" reaction!

No, this is about something much more basic.  I contend that the UN is utterly and hopelessly useless and in fact is completely redundant, having almost perfectly duplicated the role and mission of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)

Not familiar with NAM?  Don't feel bad.  If you live in the West and were born after the early 1960's, the mention of this organization probably conjures no more than a vague mental image of people in Nehru jackets, Dashikis, Jallabas and various other National Geographic-worthy attire/head-wear. 

So just to make sure we're all on the same page before we move on, here are the salient facts about NAM:

[Dark blue countries are members of NAM.  Light blue countries have observer status]

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) is an international organization of states considering themselves not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc. It was founded in the 1950s; and as of 2007 it has 118 members.

The purpose of the organization as stated in the Havana Declaration of 1979 is to ensure "the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries" in their "struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, Zionism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics."

The NAM represents nearly two-thirds of the United Nations' members and comprises 55 percent of the world population.

Obviously, as one reads through this working definition of NAM it becomes painfully obvious (see words in red) that Israel would be virtually a permanent focus of their stated agenda. But even more troubling,if one looks only at the issues driving the overwhelming majority of the UN's motions and resolutions, it becomes fairly obvious that NAMs agenda is the sole force behind the UN's narrow range of interests and actions... to the detriment of NATO and most west-leaning members.

So if this is the case, why are the United States and the rest of the NATO countries shouldering the lion's share of the financial and manpower (i.e. peacekeeping) burden for the UN?  It seems to me that, other than lending a whiff of credibility to the proceedings there on the East River (and paying pretty much all of the rent & utilities), the only other reason for the rest of the world to pay the slightest attention to the racist rantings of the UN's NAM members is to be able to occasionally veto the worst of the blood libels resolutions.

I have to think that if the United States would finally pull out of the UN and take the rest of NATO with it, several things would happen:

1.  The UN would immediately fold up its tent due to non-payment of rent and lack of manpower/funding to carry out its directives and resolutions.

2.  Russia and the remnants of the old Warsaw Pact (or at least those that haven't already joined NATO), would instantly lose their ability to stick their thumbs in the US's (and by extension, the West's) eye whenever it suited them, and would have to form their own club to advance their regional and global thumb-sticking goals.

3.  The Non-Aligned Movement would have to give up their impractical daydreams and face up to the realities of the modern world.  Most importantly, they would finally be forced to abandon as unrealistic the agendas of member-states that are destructive to the needs and goals of the larger movement.

Don't get me wrong... I am a big proponent of NAM.  I would also like to see Russia gather the few remaining Warsaw Pact countries and come to some kind of regional consensus over there.  And NATO... they should go on doing what they've been doing right along, albeit unfettered by their UN 'peacekeeping' obligations. 

Most importantly, with NAM members now possessing a huge portion of the world's cheap labor force and the last great pool of un-tapped emerging markets for consumer goods, the economic plowshares would finally be allowed to flex their ample muscles on the international stage alongside ever-present threat of the sword.

Even with the monetary and manpower contributions of the US and NATO, the UN never had the teeth necessary to carry out its stated mission.  As a result, the NAM agenda that has been allowed to monopolize the UN's efforts has resulted in nothing but low-intensity war and widespread economic stagnation (i.e. welfare states) around the planet. 

I believe that, just as most sovereign nations maintain diplomatic missions in the countries with whom they have relations (and through third parties where diplomatic relations are absent), the best result for everyone involved would be for NATO, the revived Warsaw Pact and NAM (and any other constellation of nations that feels it has something to gain by pooling resources), to maintain diplomatic missions in the major world capitols and advance their respective agendas according to mutually beneficial direct treaties and enforcible regional agreements.   

The result would be that these associations would suddenly be able to advance agendas proportionate to their relevance on the world stage, and no country or collection of countries would be made to pay for the privilege of advancing an agenda that is potentially destructive to itself or an ally.

I'm sure that my formula will probably result in short, brutal wars every two or three generations.  In fact, I'm sure of it.  But when I look at the alternative; the horrible festering brand of 'peace' that the UN has been able to offer up until now... such a peace is worse than no peace at all. 

As a result of the UN and NAM's current redundancy, the world is saddled with a new chronic condition that is identical in every way to war...except in name.  At least in my scenario, a certain Darwinian order would be allowed to emerge that would allow a few decades of relative prosperity between short, necessary conflicts... instead of the steady wasting disease that so many have mistaken for peace.

Posted by David Bogner on March 2, 2008 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference As useful as teats on a boar hog:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Have you heard about this book?

I think you'll enjoy it.

Posted by: Benji Lovitt | Mar 2, 2008 2:53:12 PM

Uh, bad news, Trep -- far, far too many people see the UN as the obvious and logical governmental successor to mere nations and states. While "three" would credibly be considered "far, far too many" to have this opinion, I am saddened to report that in this case, "far, far too many" is more likely running into the tens of millions by now, and increasing.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: Wry Mouth | Mar 2, 2008 8:35:04 PM

The unspoken ingredient in this evaluation of NAM is "Muslim". The original thrust of this movement was both understandable and useful--to create for themselves a collective weight against being pawns (political or economic) in the big Cold War contest between the US and the USSR. Soon, however, two developments emerged.
First, the Muslim nations (I think led by the Arab states) exerted leadership within NAM, leading their consensus to such otherwise unimaginable notions as "Zionism equals racism" (!!!) and on to their otherwise bizarre anti-Israel stance.
The unity of this consensus among otherwise strange bedfellows (e.g., Latin American Catholics, Kenyan Protestants, and Indian Hindus) was generated by their dark-skinned distrust of the Western white world, call it anti-Colonialism or whatever you like. Any sensitive reading of world history up to WW II would make that distrust completely understandable. It is so terribly sad (however just) that part of the price that the white world had to pay for its rampant racism of the past would be to unify black, brown, and Muslim peoples under a leadership and in principles that otherwise probably would have been most unlikely.
Given the fact of all this NAM development of the last 50 years, however, (and whatever the reasons for it), Trep's suggestion of breaking it all up into three (or more) relevant interest groups, makes great sense to me.
It's not likely to happen soon, I'm afraid, but if it does, I have no doubt that NAM solidarity would crumble in a few years' time, mainly because skin color is not as monolithically divisive as it was a half-century ago. Also, because blocs, such as South America and Africa and S.E. Asia have greater common interests than those of NAM and different interests from NAM.
And, if (God willing) we can come up with effective, economical non-oil sources of energy, and thus effectively wean ourselves from that witch's tit, the Arab oil states, in particular, will lose their leadership clout, further weakening the Muslim influence on NAM.
Without that Muslim influence on NAM these many years, why else would so many African nations (among others) who have received significant technical and agricultural help from Israel, turn on Israel and the Jews so virulently?
I never thought I'd ever think (let alone say) the words, but, yes, I say: "It's time to break up the UN!"

Posted by: Delmar Bogner | Mar 2, 2008 10:19:25 PM

Benji Lovitt ... I hadn't, but I have now. Thanks.

Wry Mouth... It may surprise you to know that membership in the UN is not very high on the list of priorities among voters in the industrialized west. In fact, I suspect that if exiting the UN would reduce the chance of getting entangled in foreign conflicts, and leave a little more tax money at home to do some domestic good... I think it would actually be a platform that most politicians would like to add to their campaigns.

Delmar Bogner... I'll bet you say that to all your sons. :-)

Posted by: treppenwitz | Mar 3, 2008 11:35:46 AM

Subject: Give this brilliant women Brigitte Gabriel a show in fox news/maybe instead of boring Greta Van Susteren.

They Must Be Stopped

This is time for Change!
Brigitte Gabriel should have a stage to spike & appeal to the world every day and everywhere.
Brilliant women like Brigitte Gabriel can have a show in fox news/
Maybe instead of boring Greta Van Susteren-
She is good But She can move to a later show.
Go to her site American Congress.com
And look at Brigitte Gabriel's-Interview,
She is is the beast spokesman for Israel.

Brigitte Gabriel's-
She is is the beast spokesman for Israel

Christian Persecution
In the Middle East

[email protected]


Shay Weiss
Miami ,USA .

Posted by: Shay .w | Mar 19, 2009 3:38:22 AM

Post a comment

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In