The UN is Hopeless

Little hurts more than losing long held and strongly felt hopes, such as the hopes most people have for their children and grandchildren. But there comes a time in such despair when, to go on living, the anguished must reject such hopes, replacing them with new hopes, held with less idealism and more realism, with less passion and more wisdom. Yet, in the process one dies a little – or a lot. As Samuel Coleridge wrote in The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner:

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man
He rose the morrow morn.

When I memorized that stanza, more than 50 years ago, I was president of my high school’s UN club. At the time, we were full of hopes for the future world, heralded by the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. But now, what a sad depth to which the UN has sunk. As former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said with dismay about the UN’s former Commission on Human Rights:

We have reached a point at which the Commission’s declining credibility has cast a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole, and where piecemeal reforms will not be enough.

In an attempt to remove that “shadow”, in 2006 the UN General Assembly attempted to reform the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) by replacing it with the Human Rights Council (HRC), but as is illustrated below, it was only a “piecemeal” reform, with the only significant change being a shuffling of the letters in its acronym.

Below is quoted text from pp. 68-73 of a UN document from the Seventh Session of the HRC. To the quotation I’ve added the colored notes in “square brackets” in hopes of prodding readers to consider how ludicrous and even despicable this resolution is. It was introduced by representatives from Pakistan and Egypt and passed by a vote of 21 to 10, with 14 abstentions.

7/19. Combating defamation of religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense]

The Human Rights Council,

Recalling the 2005 World Summit Outcome adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/1 of 24 October 2005, in which the Assembly emphasized the responsibilities of all States, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind as to race, color, sex, language or religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and acknowledged the importance of respect and understanding for religious and cultural diversity throughout the world [note that the statement is about “the importance of respect and understanding for… diversity”, not necessarily respect for religions and cultures!],

Recalling also the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in September 2001…

Recalling further the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by the General Assembly in its resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981,

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization [somebody’s gotta be kidding!] and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

Noting the Declaration adopted by the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers at its thirty-fourth session in Islamabad, in May 2007, which condemned the growing trend of Islamophobia [are we “unbelievers” (in nonsense) not to fear an ideology that, in its “holy book”, unrelentingly calls for our murder?!] and systematic discrimination against the adherents of Islam and emphasized the need to take effective measures to combat defamation of religions [how can one “defame” ideologies that are indefensible, being nothing but childish superstitions, scientific speculations by savages, babblings of deranged psychopaths, and legalistic mumbo-jumbo concocted by megalomaniacs?]

Noting also the final communiqué adopted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference [is this an Islamic or a UN document?] at its eleventh summit, in Dakar, in March 2008, in which the Organization expressed concern at the systematically negative stereotyping of Muslims and Islam and other divine religions [and those who believe in Santa Claus, fairy godmothers, elves, witches, and sundry other supernatural silliness, such as ghosts, angels, and gods], and denounced the overall rise in intolerance and discrimination against Muslim minorities [and others who require no evidence to form their strongly held beliefs], which constitute an affront to human dignity [for certainly it’s undignified to hold beliefs more strongly than relevant, reliable evidence can support] and run counter to the international human rights instruments,

Recalling the joint statement of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the European Union and the Secretary-General of 7 February 2006, in which they recognized the need, in all societies, to show sensitivity and responsibility in treating issues of special significance for the adherents of any particular faith, even by those who do not share the belief in question [and in particular, sensitivity to those delusional people who are convinced that they've been abducted by aliens, that angels communicate with people, and/or that Santa Claus really does live at the North Pole, e.g., by sensitively and responsibly getting them psychiatric help],

Reaffirming the call made by the President of the General Assembly in his statement of 15 March 2006 that, in the wake of existing mistrust and tensions, there is a need for dialogue and understanding among civilizations, cultures and religions to commit to working together to prevent provocative or regrettable incidents and to develop better ways of promoting tolerance, respect for and freedom of [and from] religion and belief [including “respect” for all ideas that are patently absurd?],

Welcoming all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the International Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation and their valuable efforts [such as?] towards the promotion of a culture of peace and dialogue at all levels,

Welcoming also the report by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on the situation of Muslims and Arabs in various parts of the world [when everyone knows that we should be tolerant of people who have made it abundantly clear that they desire to rule the world]…

Welcoming further the reports of the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Council at its fourth and sixth sessions… in which he draws the attention of Member States to the serious nature of the defamation of all religions [and the defamation of fairy tales by Hans Christian Anderson and others] and to the promotion of the fight against these phenomena by strengthening the role of interreligious and intercultural dialogue and promoting reciprocal understanding [of each other’s myths and fairy tales, absurd antihuman laws, and defunct scientific theories] and joint action to meet the fundamental challenges of development, peace and the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as the need to complement legal strategies,

Reiterating the call made by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to Member States to wage a systematic campaign against incitement to racial and religious hatred by maintaining a careful balance between the defense of secularism and respect for freedom of [and from] religion and by acknowledging and respecting the complementarity of all the freedoms embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights…

Emphasizing that States, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the media have an important role to play in promoting tolerance and freedom of [and from] religion and belief through education [except, of course, in the case of “the one true religion”, disbelievers of which and apostates from which are to be killed],

Noting with concern that defamation of religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] is among the causes of social disharmony and instability, at the national and international levels, and leads to violations of human rights,

Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, including Islam and Muslims, in human rights forums [when obviously if you’re convinced that any religion is stupid, you have no right to express your opinion]…

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense], manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief [I mean, after all, just because you cling to stupid ideas, doesn’t mean that you cling to stupid ideas – I guess];

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence, and human rights violations [I mean, just because such identification is abundantly clear in Islam’s “holy book”, the Koran, doesn’t mean that it’s true – I guess], and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels [for after all, people will next be calling a spade a spade, and we can’t have that];

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001 [because, after all, just because all of the September 11th terrorists were Muslims and behaved in a manner consistent with Islamic teachings doesn’t meant that they were Muslims following Islamic teachings – I guess];

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents, and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation [after all, when you have “sacred persons” such as Sir Isaac Newton defamed by deliberately provocative people such a Einstein, then who will be safe from criticism?!] ;

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience [for after all, if people want to be terrorists, they should have the freedom to be terrorists];

7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centers and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence [so, from here on out, everybody, stop distributing the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon, cause they’re all loaded with such crap];

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense], to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] and their value systems [such as: “Kill the infidels”] and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance [certainly we should combat religious hatred and intolerance, such as is promoted in all “holy books”];

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion [yes siree: defunct ideas MUST BE protected – otherwise, for goodness sake, people will start thinking for themselves, and we can’t have that];

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs [and all defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief [I mean, just because some people are bonkers doesn’t mean you’re to consider them bonkers] and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression [except, of course, those who express their opinions that anyone who believes in any god is bonkers], and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities [not to criticize any religion or defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions [e.g., laws of blasphemy against defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals [which certainly should be big enough loopholes to permit any theocrat to drive through with columns of tanks and armored personnel carriers];

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred [such as are contained in the Bible, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon] is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred [except, of course, for one minor detail: people have no control over their ethnicity, but they do have (or should have) control over the stupidity in which they profess “belief”];

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion [or any defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense];

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense], and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions [and defunct scientific theories, superstitions, fairy tales, astrology, and similar nonsense] to the Council at its ninth session.

Believe it or not, the above resolution (for some strange reason, without the red remarks) was adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council. Nations in favor included: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa and Sri Lanka. Wikipedia states: “Of the Council’s members from the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 16 of 17 voted for the resolution, along with China, Russia, and South Africa.” That diplomats from China, the Philippines, Russia, and South Africa voted for the resolution is a disgrace to the people that they supposedly represent. Nations voting against the resolution were Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

So now, everybody, take note: according to the above resolution of the UN’s Human Rights Council, religions have “rights”! The Council should rename itself: The UN Council for the Rights of Humans and Religions. Roy W. Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union summarized such stupidity well:

… no-one has a duty to respect any religion. Furthermore, lack of respect for a belief should not be confused with hatred of the believer. It is the believer that merits protection, not the belief.

And how are we to define defamation? Are we no longer to be permitted to condemn misogyny, homophobia, or calls to kill – if they are made in the name of religion? Are we obliged to respect religious practices that we find offensive? Is lack of respect for such practices to be considered a crime? Are ideas, are religions now to be accorded human rights? Surely, when religion invades the public domain it becomes an ideology like any other, and must be open to criticism as such. To deny the claims of religion is neither defamation nor blasphemy.

Again, why protect just religious ideas? Why not all ideas? Shouldn’t all ideas have as many “rights” as religious ideas? So, will the Council entertain its renaming as The UN Council for the Rights of Humans, Religions, and Other Ideas?

But then, what would happen if ideas conflict? Suppose, for example, that someone supports the idea (as strange as it might seem) that all religions are stupid, infantile, holdovers from (as Richard Dawkins said) “the cry-baby phase” of human development. Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Joseph Lewis:

Let me tell you that religion is the cruelest fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race. It is the last of the great schemes of thievery that man must legally prohibit so as to protect himself from the charlatans who prey upon the ignorance and fears of the people. The penalty for this type of extortion should be as severe as it is of other forms of dishonesty.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Henry Mencken:

Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration – courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and, above all, love of the truth… God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable. They find not only sanctuary in His arms, but also a kind of superiority, soothing to their macerated egos; He will set them above their betters.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Robert Ingersoll:

The doctrine that future happiness depends upon belief is monstrous. It is the infamy of infamies. The notion that faith in Christ [or Allah] is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be relieved only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance, called “faith.”

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Clarence Darrow:

The origin of the absurd idea of immortal life is easy to discover; it is kept alive by hope and fear, by childish faith, and by cowardice.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Mikhail A. Bakunin:

Religion is a collective insanity.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Thomas Edison:

So far as religion of the day is concerned, it’s a damned fake… Religion is all bunk.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by W.K. Clifford:

It’s wrong always, everywhere and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by William Archer:

I suggest that the anthropomorphic god-idea is not a harmless infirmity of human thought, but a very noxious fallacy, which is largely responsible for the calamities the world is at present enduring.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Bertrand Russell:

My own view of religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race… I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney:

Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Gene Roddenberry:

I condemn false prophets, I condemn the effort to take away the power of rational decision, to drain people of their free will – and a hell of a lot of money in the bargain. Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Frank Zappa:

If you want to get together in any exclusive situation and have people love you, fine – but to hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud-Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you’ve been bad or good – and CARES about any of it – to hang it all on that, folks, is the chimpanzee part of the brain working.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Joseph Daleiden:

In the final analysis all theology, whether Christian or otherwise, is a marvelous exercise in logic based on premisses that are no more verifiable – or reasonable – than astrology, palmistry, or belief in the Easter Bunny. Theology pretends to search for truth, but no method could lead a person farther away from the truth than that intellectual charade. The purpose of theology is first and foremost to perpetuate the religious status quo. Religion, in turn, seeks to maintain the social stability necessary for its own preservation.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by President Thomas Jefferson:

Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by President James Madison:

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by President Abraham Lincoln;

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill;

Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists
in the world.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Albert Einstein:

The Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Richard Dawkins:

If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the difference? Even bad achievements of scientists, the bombs and sonar-guided whaling vessels, *work*! The achievements of theologians don’t do anything, don’t affect anything, don’t mean anything. What makes anyone think that “theology” is a subject at all?

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Sam Harris:

We have names for people who have many beliefs for which there is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them “religious”; otherwise, they are likely to be called “mad”, “psychotic” or “delusional”.

Suppose someone supports the idea expressed by Sunand Tryambak Joshi:

The atheist, agnostic, or secularist… should not be cowed by exaggerated sensitivity to people’s religious beliefs and fail to speak vigorously and pointedly when the devout put forth arguments manifestly contrary to all the acquired knowledge of the past two or three millennia. Those who advocate a piece of folly like the theory of an “intelligent creator” should be held accountable for their folly; they have no right to be offended for being called fools until they establish that they are not in fact fools.

Then tell us, Oh Wise Members of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, will such ideas also be protected – or just the ideas recorded in sundry, ridiculous “holy books”?

No wonder respect for the UN continues to plummet. As Sigmund Freud said about all religious beliefs:

The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life.

Maybe Freud was right, but I’m not quite ready to give up on humanity. Instead, I’d urge all readers to ridicule all gods, all religions, and all “holy books” out of existence. Think about it, and if you’re so inclined, consider what Bertrand Russell said:

A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

But as sad as it is for me to say, I’ve lost hope in the UN. Yet, that’s not to suggest that some UN organizations aren’t successful (e.g., UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, WMO, and others), but we need to start over, planning to keep what’s working and to jettison what isn’t (such as the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the Human Rights Council). Best would be start over “from scratch”, because with the rules of the existing UN, I expect that the members will never agree to needed reforms, since nations almost certainly won’t agree to reduce their representation, privileges, and power.

For example, starting from scratch, let’s invite all nations to join a new organization (maybe call it the Global Congress, GC, or the Global Council, GC, or the Global Cooperative, GC, or similar), with two houses of congress, with passage of any resolution requiring a majority in both houses, and with each participating nation having representation in both houses. In one house, maybe call it “The House of Rights”, the votes of the representatives would be weighted by the number of people that each diplomat represents multiplied by a measure of the people’s freedom, e.g., as a first approximation (until a better measure becomes available) as given by summing columns A (Electoral Process) through G (Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights) from the Table produced by Freedom House, with the goal being to have each vote reflect the freely held opinions of people whom each diplomat represents in reality rather than as claimed by the nation's rulers.

In the other house of the Global Congress, maybe call it “The House of Responsibilities”, the votes of the same nation’s diplomats would be weighted by the financial contributions to the GC made by each representative’s nation, with the goal being to have each vote reflect the willingness of each nation to shoulder the responsibilities associated with each resolution. For example, if funding for the GC were similar to current funding of the UN, then those nations paying “the floor rate” of 0.001% of the total budget would have their votes in The House of Responsibilities multiplied by 0.001%, while (again if current contributions continued) votes of the following nations would be multiplied by the following numbers (reflecting their 2007 percentage contributions to the total UN budget): US 22% (the maximum currently permitted), Japan 16.6%, Germany 8.7%, UK 6.1%, France 6.0%, Italy 4.9%, Canada 2.8%, China 2.7%, Spain 2.5%, Mexico 1.9%, Australia 1.6%, Brazil 1.5%, etc.

Similar weightings of all ballots would occur in all Committees, Councils, Working Groups, etc., established by the GC, although probably not by establishing two subgroups within each group (although the rights and responsibilities associated with every resolution would, of course, need to be thoroughly and separately evaluated), but instead, by weighting each ballot in each group both via “rights” and “responsibilities”. For example, the following table shows the results of the two separate weightings for a GC Human Rights Council vote on the resolution dealing with “Combating defamation of religions”, assuming the votes cast would be the same as were cast in the UN Human Rights Council.


For the calculations shown (click the table to enlarge it), numbers in the “Relative Freedom” column are obtained by summing columns A through G of the 2007 Freedom House figures already referenced (used until a better measure of freedoms becomes available), and numbers in the “Rights-Weighted” column are the products of the nation’s “Population” (in hundreds of millions) and its “Relative Freedom” (divided by 100). The “Responsibilities-Weighted” column is obtained from the 2007 funding for the UN, copied from the relevant UN report (p. 9). As a result, for the same nations voting in the same manner on the same resolution in a GC’s Human Right Council (which passed in the UN’s Human Rights Council by a vote of 21 to 10 - although the representatives from China and Russia might display more responsibility when their votes are more significant), the “Totals” show (if I’ve made no errors copying all those numbers!) that although the resolution would have passed by 7.86 to 3.59 (about 2 to 1) with a rights-based weighting, it would have failed by 32.876 to 5.712 (or about 33 to 6) with a responsibilities-based weighting. Therefore, upon failing to be approved by both measurements, the stupid, antihuman, religious-defamation-nonsense resolution would have been rejected.

As for other details about the proposed Global Congress, they would be worked out by mutual consent. I’d expect agreement that an Administrator would be elected by a majority of both houses for a single term (maybe for six years), that the Administrator (and only the Administrator) would have veto power, which could be over-ridden by a two-thirds majority in both houses, and that the Administrator would be commander-in-chief of the GC’s police forces. Also, I expect that an independent judiciary would be established with lifetime court-appointments of judges by majorities in both houses - all (including the Administrator and all diplomats) of course impeachable by a majority in both houses.

If a few nations started the GC (e.g., the US, Japan, EU nations, Australia, Canada, India…), then I expect that within a few years, the rest of the nations of the world would quickly follow, leading to the simultaneous abandonment of the UN. Good riddance: the UN is UNdermined, UNsuitable, UNsound, UNtenable, UNwise, UNworkable, UNrepresentative, UNdemocratic, UNconscionable, UNscrupulous, UNsuccessful, and UNworthy of further hope.

www.zenofzero.net