If the UN have an agenda, I would really like to know who is involved in forming it.
My guess it that those governments that get replaced the least often are those that have the most influence in the UN bureaucracy. (And France for some reason.)
The UN's agenda is certainly imperialism-friendly (as long as the imperialists are Arab) and very hostile towards Israel (less so towards the US) and the African population (as opposed to the African regimes).
The entire thing appears to be a power protection mechanism designed to keep dictators in power and people down.
Because I believe in the democratic principles - out of everything, it is the best alternative. And in that, theoretically at least, the elected body of governance is at least supposedly able to be held accountable for their actions.
Most countries do not have an elected government.
Some countries that don't do still have a government that is perfectly capable (Jordan, Morocco).
And one quasi-country, the Palestinian Authority, is neither elected nor non-elected but elected by the UN and the west who forced Israel and the Arab population of the territories to accept terrorist rule over those territories. The UN (and the EU for some reason) are currently trying to force terrorist rule over the Jewish holy sites and East-Jerusalem as well, despite the fact that the people of Jerusalem, Jews and Arabs alike, haven't been asked but plainly appear not to want to submit to PLO rule.
In fact I have heard from Jewish and Arab groups that there will be an "Intifada" in Jerusalem should any Israeli government hand over any part of the city to PLO rule.
See this article of mine about the people of Jerusalem, where the UN ignores nations and people (even Arabs) and territorial integrity for the sake of an anti-Israel position.
The people have an power in a democracy - the US constitution has that as its very first sentence, and it's not without a reason. (We, the people of the United States...) Where are the people in the UNO?It is undemocratic that a organization has that much power and nobody to whom it is accountable to.
The people of the UNO are the dictators and few elected heads of governments that form the "General Assembly".
You won't find a Kurdish representative at the "United Nations", unless the president of Iraq speaks. But he represents neither the Kurdish nor the Arab people but the state of Iraq and he is elected by all Iraqis but not all Kurds and thus cannot speak for the Kurdish nation.
Israel represents the Jewish nation at the UN, by definition.
The US represent American Indians, since they can vote there. Australia represents the Aboriginals, officially. I guess it is fair to say that New-Zealand represents not only English New-Zealanders but also the natives since the state of New-Zealand really is based on a treaty between native New-Zealanders and the British Crown. And perhaps Egypt represents native Egyptians (or just Arab Egyptians, hard to tell).
Germany represents the Sorbish nation as well as part of the German nation.
But there are no representatives at the United "Nations" of the Imazighen (Berbers), of the Nilo-Saharan tribes, of the Kurds, or of the Assyrian nation.
The entire concept of the United "Nations" is nonsense.
It wasn't like that, originally.
In the 1940s the United Nations were actually supposed to represent nations and it did, for some time.
Hence the Soviet Union had three votes in the General Assembly (since it represented, among others, the three nations of Russians, Belarussians, and Ukrainians) and hence the United Nations recognised the right of self-determination of the Jewish people.
But the Cold War replaced the nation right of self-determination with a regime right of territorial integrity. And this is what the UN know defend fiercely.
This is why we don't see the UN trying to form a country for the Kurds, despite the fact that only a few years ago the world had an occupied territory overlapping with the Kurdish population centre.
Independence for Kosovo was a step towards self-determination (this time for Albanians) and was fiercely opposed by the territorial integrity crowd. The invasion of Iraq did more for the self-determination of a nation (the Kurds) than anything the UN had done since East-Timor in 1975. But nobody in the UN even took that little detail into account when discussing the Iraq war, so forgotten has the actual principle behind the UN become.
Also note that "territorial integrity" is a principle not applied to Israel. There is no doubt in the UN that land can and should be taken away from Israel and given to never-existing countries.
It is all a bit fishy if you ask me - much like the Lissabon treaty that is in effect for the EU since December 1st. Now Europe has much resemblance to a constitutional monarchy where the EU comission is royalty and the people have no influence whatsoever on what is going on. Some unseen bureaucrats in Brussels and the elected leaders of the member states can basically do what they want without opposition. It is doubtful that this is interesting for americans, but I know that Ireland had been more or less bullied into ratifying.
It is fishy, of course. But I have noticed that the left-wing and right-wing fanatics were against Lisbon. If Sinn Fein and the British National Party are against it, I am certainly for it.
I'd rather be ruled by unelected Stalinist bureaucrats in Bruseels than by some of the idiots that can be freely elected in individual European states.