Scrap the UN


Years ago I came up with an excellent alternative plan (if I may say so myself) for dividing Israel into two states. I know that there is such a plan, but this one is different. My proposal is to have two countries, one for all the nice people, and the other for the A-holes. Regardless of religion, age or gender. All the fanatics, trigger-happy, repressive, narrow-minded, boring, smug and/or rude people will get to live together in one state, and the liberal-minded, inclusive, funny and generous people will get to enjoy the company of each other within secure and recognized borders. When someone does something that annoys me, usually while I’m driving, I get to mumble, “and you, will be on the other side of the border”.

Although this is a fine plan, I’m afraid it will never be taken seriously. On the more serious side, I’ve just come up with a new plan. I call it:  SCRAP the UN.

What the United Nations has been proposing to promote, during its 66 years of existence is, in it’s own words:

– To maintain international peace and security

– To develop friendly relationships among nations

– To co-operate in solving international problems (poverty, diseases, illiteracy and to stop environmental destruction) and in promoting respect for human rights and freedom

– To be a centre for helping nations achieve these objectives

Well, as far as I can see, it’s not working. The UN is not accomplishing what it has set out to do. On the contrary.  The mere existence of the organization often aggrevates or perpetuates the problems it proposes to solve. I have written about UNWRA on a number of occasions, and will not repeat myself at this point, but UNWRA is a prime example of how the UN has caused a solvable refugee issue to become permanent and un-solvable.

The combined agencies of the UN have an annual budget of $5,152 million. That is a vast amount of money. In fact, it is above the annual GNP of 60 of the UN’s own member-nations. Running the UN is costing the developed world a lot of money, which at best is just wasted and, at worst is actually counterproductive to its declared goals.

Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2011
Member state Contribution
(% of UN budget)
 USA 22.000%
 Japan 12.530%
 Germany 8.018%
 United Kingdom 6.604%
 France 6.123%
 Italy 4.999%
 Canada 3.207%
 China 3.189%
 Spain 3.177%
 Mexico 2.356%
Other member states 27.797%


The top ten contributors to the UN’s budget provide over 70% of the organizations funds. Nine of these ten countries are democracies. The tenth, China, contributes around 3% of the budget. So, by and large, the big democracies, who are also the world’s wealthiest nations, pay to run the UN.

So, how about doing this? We close the UN. We establish another organization called DN (Democratic Nations). The DN will have one goal, world democratization. First of all, we need a definition of an acceptable democracy. That can be worked out. Give a think-tank of academics from democratic countries (democracy, like sallad, is something we recognize when we see it, although it’s sometimes is hard to define) one month to agree on precisely how the democracy needs to express itself, and on the necessary checks and balances, taking into account the difficulties of transitioning from any kind of dictatorial regime to freedom and equality. This definition needs to be wide enough to enable some variation according to specific needs, but narrow enough to protect newly emerging democracies from slipping back into bad old habits.

Now, the DN will pool its considerableresources to help those states that so wish to become democracies. A kind of World Marshall Plan. The motto could be, “We’ll help you, if you cut the crap”. And for those who need it spelled out. “We won’t help you if you don’t cut the crap”. All Western countries are struggeling with illegal immigration from poor countries. Immigration of large groups of population cannot solve the basic problem of poverty. Only profound reform in the countries of origin, allowing citizens to find work, an acceptable income and a certain standard of personal freedom and equality, can.  Most poor countries don’t need to be poor. They choose to stay totalitarian, and poor. Citizens of such states must take responsibility for their fate, not by emmigrating, but by demanding democratization.

When our kids were little, they would occasionally come up with ideas like “we should invent a machine that turns heese in to gold, and then there would be enough money for everybody in the world to buy food”. It’s a great idea, and the implementation is really only a technical question.

So, scrap the UN and create the DN. The rest is just a technical question.

Noomi Stahl


Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!