Every article that appears at Cliscep is very much the work of its author, and does not necessarily represent a collective view. Indeed, it’s always possible that authors who contribute articles will disagree fundamentally with the contents of articles written by others. In the “Legal stuff” at the end of the website’s “about” section this is made clear: “Each individual contributor is solely responsible for his/her own articles, and the views expressed in any article are not necessarily those of any other contributor”.I stress this for the simple reason that what follows is possibly a little off topic in Cliscep terms, represents my own thoughts, and hasn’t been discussed with (and certainly not “cleared” by) others.

Chapter one of the United Nations (UN) Charter tells us that the purposes of the United Nations are four-fold. First:

To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

Second:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.

Third:

To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

And fourth:

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

These are all worthy aims, and while climate change wasn’t considered in 1945, it might just about be argued that it falls under part of the third category, namely “…international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character…”.

It isn’t clear whether the four objectives are set out in order of deemed importance, but if so, I would support the prioritisation involved. Given that climate change, as an issue, at best sneaks in as a stretched interpretation of what may well be a tertiary priority, it seems odd that an obsession with it appears to have taken over pretty much every aspect of the UN’s activities, while arguably its other (and more important) purposes are today largely left lying in the dust.

One of the early activities of diplomats at the UN was the setting up of a global health organisation. BY 22^nd July 1946 the constitution of the World Health Organisation was finalised and signed by representatives of 51 Members of the UN and of 10 other nations. Those signatures required ratifications by home governments, and the WHO’s constitution came into force only on 7^th April 1948 when the 26^th signature ratification occurred. Today it has 194 member states. Over the decades the WHO has carried out much important work, but it became mired in controversy with regard to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, not least with regard to the easy ride some considered it gave to the Chinese authorities with regard to the question of how the virus emerged. It’s a curious coincidence that the WHO arguably owes its existence to the fact that in April 1945, when delegates to the putative UN were first meeting in San Francisco, it was representatives from China and Brazil who proposed that an international health organization be established and a conference to frame its constitution convened.

There are now plans (controversial to some) for a WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty. While some, such as the Telegraph have worried about the implications of such a treaty for national sovereignty (claiming that “[l]ockdown measures could be imposed on the UK by the World Health Organisation (WHO) during a future pandemic under sweeping new powers…”), others, such as the Lancet say that “the bureau text includes provisions safeguarding national sovereignty, which has been consistently emphasised by the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) during negotiations.” It is to be hoped that this is true, given that Article 2 of the UN Charter contains this as its seventh principle:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

After all, perhaps some at the UN need reminding of this principle. Here’s the heading of a UN press release from 19^th April 2021 – “UN Experts Condemn UK Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities Report”. I have not looked into the details of the claims and counter-claims concerning the issue in question, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the issue I find it remarkable, in view of the seventh principle, that the UN should use the language it does here:

The UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent categorically rejects and condemns the analysis and findings of the recently published report by the UK’s Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities…

…Stunningly, the Report also claims that, while there might be overt acts of racism in the UK, there is no institutional racism. The Report offers no evidence for this claim, but openly blames identity politics, disparages complex analyses of race and ethnicity using qualitative and quantitative research, proffers shocking misstatements and/or misunderstandings about data collection and mixed methods research, cites “pessimism,” “linguistic inflation,” and “emotion” as bases to distrust data and narratives associated with racism and racial discrimination, and attempts to delegitimize data grounded in lived experience while also shifting the blame for the impacts of racism to the people most impacted by it. For example, the Report seeks to rely on police reports of hate crimes …

…[It] is a tone-deaf attempt at rejecting the lived realities of people of African descent and other ethnic minorities in the UK.

Finally, the Report’s mythical representation of enslavement is an attempt to sanitize the history of the trade in enslaved Africans. This is a reprehensible, although not unfamiliar tactic, employed by many whose wealth came directly from the enslavement of others, ever since slavery was outlawed. Seeking to silence the brutal role of enslavers, the mind-numbing generational wealth they accrued, and the social capital and political influence they gained from exploiting black bodies is a deliberate attempt at historical misrepresentation…

…We urge the British government to categorically reject the findings of the Report…

Even if the criticisms are justified (and the lack of objectivity in comments which accuse the original report of a lack of objectivity must at the very least make it questionable), the only possible response is to ask why the UN has chosen to “intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of [the UK] state”, in breach of the principles set out in its Charter?

The answer to that question, I suggest, is that organisations of this sort inevitably seek to expand their remit. They are never satisfied with the constraints upon them, are anxious to increase their influence, yet will retreat if met with serious opposition, while pushing into areas where opposition is limited or non-existent. Hence, perhaps, the retreat from probing the origins of SARS-CoV-2 when met with opposition from China, one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The make-up of the Security Council, with its five permanent members, might be understandable in a 1945 context, but it’s arguable that it makes little sense today, especially given the power of any one of those members to veto resolutions which might otherwise be passed with almost unanimous support.

I would suggest that the presence of Russia on the Security Council renders the UN impotent to intervene in a meaningful way with regard to the conflict in Ukraine. The presence of the United States makes it impossible for the UN to intervene wherever the USA sees its interests as being affected. Whatever one thinks of the rights and wrongs of the dreadful situation in Palestine, it is undeniable that the USA is deeply interested in the situation, and that it is strongly supportive of Israel (even if, perhaps, behind the scenes, it is seeking to control or limit Israel’s actions). Thus we find a situation where the USA seems to have far more to say about, and far more influence over, events in Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine than does the UN. As Gordon Brown recently wrote in the Guardian:

…it is a sad commentary on the polarised times we live in that this week, the UN security council could not even bring forward an agreed resolution that provides explicit safeguards for the rights of children currently caught up in the conflict, reinforcing a perception that the international community is as powerless to protect children in Israel and Gaza as it has been in a succession of tragedies in Yemen, Sudan, Myanmar and Ukraine.

The UN, then, is powerless to protect children in conflicts around the world where they are clearly in danger. Instead, it busies itself writing reports blaming climate change for the problems of children around the world. In fairness, it also writes about children affected by conflict:

Around the world, attacks on children continue unabated. The number of countries experiencing violent conflict is the highest it has been in the last 30 years. The result is that more than 30 million children have been displaced by conflict. Many of them are being enslaved, trafficked, abused and exploited. Many more are living in limbo, without official immigration status or access to education and health care. From Afghanistan to Mali, to South Sudan, Yemen and beyond, warring parties are flouting one of the most basic rules of war: the protection of children….

Between 2005 and 2022, more than 315,000 grave violations were verified against children, committed by parties to conflict in more than 30 conflict situations across Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America. The actual number is undoubtedly far higher. 

The report is powerful and moving, but its conclusions are limp. It says we must act now, but offers no mechanism by which such action might be implemented. There is no suggestion that we should hold an annual conference of the parties to agree actions to deal with violations against children. There is no blueprint to reform the UN, to change the structure of the Security Council, to render the UN a meaningful international body that has in place structures capable of meeting the objectives set out in its Charter.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands are due to attend the 28^th annual jamboree that will fail to achieve anything with regard to climate change. The resources devoted to this are huge, probably because it’s an area where no push-back to the process is ever encountered (though only lip-service is ever paid to the objectives, especially by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, China and Russia, who probably see the whole COP process as a means of empowering the useful idiots who seek to undermine the west).

A visit to the relevant part of the UN website reveals an organisation which sees itself as central to a massive policy agenda which is arguably peripheral at best in terms of its Charter obligations. Vast amounts of money and resources are devoted to this area where it should be patently obvious by now that it is making no meaningful difference to levels of greenhouse gas emissions or to climate change. Meanwhile it stands around limply wringing its hands with regard to areas that are central to its Charter obligations. My advice to the President of the UN General Assembly and to the UN’s Secretary-General is to stop grandstanding with regard to issues where the UN can achieve nothing, and to concentrate instead on the day job, however difficult that job might be. The world is on fire, but not in the way that the UN wants us to believe. Do something about it.