America’s withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has provided meat for supporters and critics of both the UN and the USA, especially when contrasted with the ‘kiddies in cages’ migration issue.
What is clear is that there is something wrong with the UNHRC. It would be reasonable to assume that the countries that participate in this UN offshoot are champions of human rights. They are not by any means. There is no minimum standard of human rights that would disqualify some countries. But this is because the UNHRC is merely a vanity project.
From time to time, various other UN vanity projects publish reports which are critical about life in Britain, following a visit by one UN official or another. The officials are usually some liberal academic or expert. There is usually a political agenda. The reports are published, used by the Left to validate their pathetic existence, and then ignored.
However, these kind of nonsense reports discredit the UN and call its existence into question. This is dangerous.
The UN has but a single function, one that is concealed by all the flummery produced by the numerous vanity agencies and virtue projects that sit under its umbrella. This is to prevent, for all time, a general war between the major powers of the world. Everything else is just window-dressing or an accumulation of international technocratic agencies that could theoretically operate independently of the UN.
In 1939, the Axis powers set out to conquer the world by trying to defeat Britain, the USA, and the USSR. They tried to do this by attacking swiftly before these powers could leverage their industrial power to rearm, having already re-armed themselves by militarising their populations.
Germany succeeded in conquering a continental Europe relatively unprepared for war. Japan, having started its programme of Asian conquest as far back as 1910, took over large parts of Asia and the Pacific. And Italy, well, they did have a try in Africa.
The Axis’s swift war strategy failed. The long war could only benefit the powers that had access to the bulk of the world’s raw materials, manpower, and technology. The war was lost by the Axis by the middle of 1943. The 20th century wars between mobilised powers ended only when one side was crushed. Powers facing defeat would fight to slightly before, if not right up to, the bitter end. The crushing took another two years.
So it was not the Axis who conquered the world, it was the Allies. They called themselves from about 1943 the United Nations. The leading members founded the organisation that exists to this day.
The UN is a de facto world government. Its executive is the Security Council, more specifically the five permanent members or P5 as they are known. Britain, France and China, having fought the Axis powers well before either the USA or the USSR got involved, joined the two emergent superpowers as members of the P5.
The P5 are a weak, fractious coalition of states who are normally divided on most issues between the democracies and the dictatorships. This division means that power is devolved to sovereign countries around the world instead of these being mere administrative vassals of the P5. P5 countries have enhanced rights of action militarily. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN attacked Iraq. When the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan, the UN did almost, or actually, nothing.
For all their division, the P5 do wield immense power when they are united, but this is rare. The only acceptable form of aggressive war against a country is that which is either approved by or – despite objections, sometimes possibly including international law – performed by a member of the P5. Colonel Gaddafi found that out when Russia and China approved Resolution 1973 which authorised external military intervention in the Libyan civil war. He lost both his country and his life.
Vetoes against Security Council resolutions abound, but are binding. The USSR learnt of this power to its cost when, during its boycott of the Security Council in 1950 and absent its veto, the remaining members authorised war against North Korea.
Organisations such as the UNHRC discredit the UN to the point that some call into question what the UN is actually for. Civilisation probably owes its continued existence to the UN, when humanity looked at the devastation wrought by the Axis, and the failure of the League of Nations to contain or divert them, and said ‘never again’.
The UNHRC is a toothless agency that provides some form of panacea to its adherents. But it should not divert us from the main role of the UN, which is to prevent war between the powers. It is not perfect: proxy wars abound, as well as state-sponsored terrorism as a form of end-run around the UN’s prohibition on international aggression. But the P5 are all that stands between peace and the current refashioned 19th century Great Power politics being taken to another disastrous conclusion.
The UN represents jaw-jaw. Long may this continue.