The role of the United Nations in the modern world has fallen into disrepute; the recent elevation of Russia as the temporary President of the UN Security Council, was a new low in reputational damage. Described by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister as the worst possible April Fool’s Day joke, Russia’s invasion is in contravention of the UN charter, signed by every member. Russia has repeatedly used its veto powers to prevent any meaningful discussion.

It is worth remembering that Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny was believed by UN experts to have been poisoned in 2020 with Novichok, a Russian nerve agent. An official letter was sent to the Russian government, followed by a joint statement from 45 countries, which produced no response from the Kremlin. Whilst in jail, he is now feared to have once more been poisoned, and to be at risk of death; how will Russia respond from its current position of authority? The UN has apparently given up on the Ukraine invasion and is now soliciting money for the civil war in Sudan.

The League of Nations was established in the aftermath of the first world war. Its purpose was to encourage recovery and promote peace. It consisted of 42 nations (excluding the US) and its failure was made apparent by the onset of the second world war. Its successor, the United Nations, was first discussed in 1941, it became a reality at the war’s end in 1945, with a meeting of 50 government heads. Apart from promoting peace, its other idealistic goals were to promote human rights, establish an international legal system, encourage sustainable development, and distribute aid.

With progressive decolonisation, the number of countries signed up expanded rapidly from the 1960s, to reach the current total of 193 countries, including 99.4 per cent of the world’s population; the smallest 36 have a population of less than 1 million, and each has a vote in the General Assembly. Overseeing the organisation is a Security Council of 15 members, 10 elected on a rotating basis, and the 5 permanent members include China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US who have the right to veto any resolutions of the General Assembly. It has an annual budget of US$3.2 billion, in addition to the costs of its other UN entities.

Between 1945 and 1969 most resolutions were put forward by the US; vetos were rare from France and the UK, and China used its power only once. In the new spirit of international cooperation, Russia used its veto in 93 per cent of embargo cases. Thereafter the roles were reversed, with the US increasingly blocking resolutions as the balance of power in the General Assembly shifted. In total, Russia has used its veto 120 times, the US 82 times, the UK 29 times, and France 16 times; more recently China has exerted its authority to veto 17 times.

The UN has in the past provided valuable peacekeeping forces. In 1947, at the partition of Palestine, in 1956 in the Suez invasion, and 1964 in civil wars in the Congo, Namibia, Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Kosovo; a total of 71 operations. Some have required permanent peace-keeping forces, such as in Cyprus. A total of 12 operations are currently continuing, in Kosovo, Cyprus, Syria, Lebanon, Western Sahara, Mali, The Congo, Central African Republic, two in South Sudan, Israel, and the India/Pakistani border, involving around 85,000 personnel, from up to 120 countries. Their estimated annual cost is US$6.5 billion, the US contributes 26 per cent, China 16 per cent, Japan 8 per cent, UK and France 6 per cent; Russia provides 2 per cent (the same as Australia). A similar ratio of donations is made to all the UN agencies, with the US at 22 per cent – around US$12 billion, China at 12 per cent, Japan 8 per cent, and Germany 6 per cent – together accounting for around half the total.

The WHO was established in Geneva in 1948, as an offshoot of the United Nations, it now has a staff of 5,500. From personal experience, when working on overseas aid projects in the 1980s, I found its input to be minimal: the occasional rep would jet set in first class, stay at the best hotel, have a chat, and jet out again. Its 2019 budget of over US$5.8 billion of contributions, showed that 40 per cent is spent on country offices, 25 per cent on regional offices, and 35 per cent (US$1.7 billion) on its Swiss headquarters. It is difficult to find the exact total spent on administration as opposed to ‘the sharp end’ but a figure of 50 per cent has been muted. Its failure in the Covid pandemic, with suspicions of Chinese influence through its China-endorsed Director General, makes its future role debatable. Its latest pronouncement is a disturbing grab for more power, in 2024 it plans to introduce a bill to make its recommendations on mandates, masks, vaccines etc, compulsory worldwide. The US, under President Trump, had threatened to withdraw from the organisation, a decision now reversed by President Biden; the 196 member countries may need to consider the possible consequences of loss of authority.

Despite China being on the council of the UN Human Rights Council, (UNHRC) there is no longer any pretence of adhering to the UN human rights declaration, (which all members have signed) with its demands for free speech, freedom of assembly, legal rights, or religious freedom. The current 47 members speaks volumes, including regimes such as Saudi, Egypt, China, Russia, Eritrea, Somalia, etc; the organisation ignores blatant abuses by many of these autocracies. The US temporarily withdrew after complaining about its hypocrisy; the suppression of the UN’s report on Uighur maltreatment by China, clearly demonstrates its double standards

UNHRC spends much of its time discussing supposed abuses in Israel, rather than addressing the world’s real problems; in special sessions, it has reviewed Libya once, Myanmar 3 times, Syria 5 times, and Israel 9 times. A similar ratio exists for commissions of enquiry, the only difference being that North Korea has also once been the subject of enquiry. The UN human rights expert is mandated to investigate only Israeli violations, not those of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. At the same time, UNESCO provides funds for school education that are used to breed the next generation of recruits for Palestinian terrorist organisations.

As part of increasing assertiveness, China has also made claims to the South China Sea; despite being rejected by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea at the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. It has reinforced its claim by building military outposts in disputed territory, destroying coral reefs in the process, an illegal activity that has produced no UN response and now threatens a major trading route. At the same time Australia became a bad poster boy for its management of the Great Barrier Reef – considered endangered after their inspection, whereas close inspection shows coral to be at the best level in 30 years.

The UN Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) is another example of bureaucracy losing its way. Initially intended as a means of collaborating between nations on scientific, educational, natural, and social sciences, its current role is advocated to ‘strengthen the intellectual and moral solidarity of humankind’. Even more Woke, it ‘aims to firmly entrench universal values and solidarity, inclusion, anti-discrimination, gender quality’ etc. It is becoming the leader of the organisation’s Climate Change agenda, with its role in sustainable development and heritage protection.

China has been a significant contributor to UNESCO, which this year plans to celebrate the 35th anniversary of its historical Silk Road project; the organisation’s Chinese deputy director describes the relationship as a strategic partnership. This event coincides with the 10th anniversary of China’s Belt and Road initiative, an estimated 35 per cent of these projects being in violation of the UN’s own labour and environmental laws. The debt levels accrued, much spent on vanity projects of little commercial value, means this debt-diplomacy is unsustainable for the donor; unlike the West, China rarely gives aid, it gives loans that have to be repaid. The debt levels of many small countries have a profound influence on their UN voting strategies.

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees, (UNHCR) deals with an ever-increasing number of refugees, it has a workforce of 17,000; although a worthy cause, 60 per cent of its funding has to come from charity. It has been forced to recognise the human rights abuses in Afghanistan, now that female aid workers are no longer allowed in the country; Islamic culture has taken precedence over the distribution of food aid, in addition to denying girls’ schooling, again without adverse comment.

A myriad of other organisations have sprung up under UN auspices, examples include food distribution, agriculture, labour regulations, maritime control, aviation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, meteorology, property rights, tourism, postal services – 15 in all, producing a myriad of initials. The World International Property Organisation (WIPO) has also been missing in action, as massive intellectual property theft has occurred through the now-discredited University based Confucius Institutes and associated Thousand Talents programs.

China has influence in the International Seabed Authority, part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; it is promoting undersea mining, without comment from environmental organisations. It is also head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in Italy, the influential UN Industrial and Development Organisation (UNIDO) in Vienna, and the Canada-based International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO).

Since the invasion of Ukraine, there have been numerous UN resolutions condemning Russia’s actions. The latest, in February, demanding a ‘comprehensive, just and lasting peace’, was backed by 141 countries, 32 abstained (including India), and 7, including Russia, Syria, Belarus, North Korea, Mali, Nicaragua, and Eritrea voted against. Russia continues to veto resolutions and the war continues, with an ineffectual response from the UN.

Instead of focusing on its original aims, it is increasingly diverted to social engineering, with the equity, diversity, and inclusion agenda. Its Secretary-General Antonio Guterres seems more interested in saving the planet from climate change than war; he is also leading the organisation in its wealth redistribution agenda, with the Great Reset of capitalism (no mention of communism). The Great Reset is supported by other influential people such as Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, King Charles III, socialists in the US, business leaders, high profile politicians, and activists, with its intention being to reset the world economy after Covid; as this is fading climate change will regain its role as the new world threat.

Their supposedly more enlightened views would address poverty, gender inequality, racism, religious freedom, discrimination, and xenophobia; in fact, all the ills of humanity as described in the Woke vocabulary. They would also undermine the process of democracy, and leave the elite to control what Hilary Clinton once described as ‘the basket of deplorables’. Guterres recommended a call to action on human rights, whilst studiously ignoring the original UN charter’s obligations.

This new ‘mission’ for the UN will be to support the socialist nirvana, whilst weakening the capitalist system which has lifted billions from poverty. If it succeeds, it will undermine the wealth creation which has funded so many social initiatives; without wealth creation, there can be no wealth redistribution. The original mission of the UN is being undermined by an all-pervasive woke ideology; initially the organisation was intended to promote world peace and security, give humanitarian assistance to those in need, protect human rights, and uphold international law. It has moved on to sustainable development goals and climate change, whilst doing little about the injustices of the world.

It is not alone; many global institutions, such as sporting bodies (international soccer with FIFA, International Olympic Committee, IOC), aid organisations (Save the Children, Amnesty International), and the Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), are seeking change. Even national bodies, such as our own Australian Medical Association (AMA), the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS), Academic institutions, businesses such as Qantas, and local councils, are now involved in politically correct activities outside their original remit.

The original League of Nations conspicuously failed in its role of war prevention, its successor has expanded the grand vision, with few indications of success. Its many member organisations, such as the World Bank, the World Food Program, UNHRC, and UNESCO, provide other examples of good intentions leading to corruption, political intrigue, or distortion of purpose. The latest ’under-the-counter mission’ creep of the WHO, involves not only worldwide pandemic control, but is spreading into areas of social engineering and climate change; is this part of the once much-vaunted Great Reset as advocated by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum?

It is overdue time to debate the usefulness of these expensive, monolithic, and increasingly dysfunctional organisations, maybe this is another swamp for the Donald to drain?

Dr Graham Pinn, Retired Consultant Physician, has worked in 10 countries and seen many of these organisations in action.