Questions About The United Nations

Trying to bring myself up to date on the history of modern Israel yesterday, I ran into the British Mandate for Palestine:

In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people" alongside the Palestinian Arabs, who composed the vast majority of the local population. . . . The British controlled Palestine for almost three decades, overseeing a succession of protests, riots and revolts between the Jewish and Palestinian Arab communities. . . . The United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was passed on 29 November 1947; this envisaged the creation of separate Jewish and Arab states operating under economic union, and with Jerusalem transferred to UN trusteeship. . . . After the failure of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, the 1947–1949 Palestine war ended with Mandatory Palestine divided among Israel, the Jordanian annexation of the West Bank and the Egyptian All-Palestine Protectorate in the Gaza Strip.

It suddently dawned on me how much of the world's attention has been consumed with the outcome of British fecklessness in the Mandate. I asked Chrome AI Mode, "What percentage of UN business is connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict?" It answered,

The United Nations (UN) does not publish a single percentage for all "business" connected to the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, data from specific UN bodies and financial reports indicate a substantial and often disproportionate focus on the region across several metrics:

General Assembly (UNGA) Resolutions: Between 2015 and 2024, approximately 68% of all condemnatory resolutions (173 out of 253) passed by the UNGA targeted Israel. In 2024 alone, the UNGA adopted 17 resolutions singling out Israel compared to 6 for the rest of the world combined.

Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Since its inception in 2006, more than 50% of the UNHRC's country-specific resolutions have been against Israel. It is the only nation with a standing agenda item (Item 7) dedicated to it at every session.

Security Council Vetoes: The United States has used its veto power 83 times in total, with 50.6% of those vetoes (42 instances) used to block resolutions critical of Israel.

Considering all the other issues facing the UN, while acknowledging that many of these, like global warming, are bogus, it's amazing that over half of the UN's official business seems to be focused on this single issue in a relatively small area of the world. But that led me to another question -- the one my old co-worker Phil used to ask in meetings, "What problem are we trying to solve?" as it specifically applies to the UN. I asked Chrome AI Mode, "What problem was the UN Charter trying to solve?" It answered,

The UN Charter, signed on June 26, 1945, was primarily designed to solve the problem of perpetual global warfare. Created in the immediate aftermath of World War II, its authors sought to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" by establishing a new international order based on collective security.

Specifically, the Charter was intended to address several critical failures of the previous international system:

Failure of the League of Nations: The Charter sought to succeed where the League of Nations failed by creating a more robust structure that included the world's major powers and provided a mechanism for enforcing international peace.

Unrestrained Aggression: It aimed to restrain state aggression by prohibiting the "threat or use of force" against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, except in cases of self-defense or Security Council authorization.

And so forth. All I can think is that this worked so well from the start that four years later, we had NATO. So I asked Chrome AI Mode, "What problem was NATO trying to solve?" It answered,

NATO was established to solve several critical post-World War II problems, primarily focusing on security, economic recovery, and political stability in the North Atlantic area.

Soviet Expansionism: The primary motivation was to block the expansion of the Soviet Union into Western Europe. Allied leaders feared that without a unified defense, individual European nations might be vulnerable to communist subversion or direct military incursions.

. . . Economic Stagnation: Economic recovery required a secure environment. NATO provided the "security umbrella" that allowed European nations to focus resources on rebuilding their industries and infrastructure rather than on massive individual defense spending.

Political Fragmentation: The alliance promoted democratic values and established a permanent structure for political consultation. This was intended to build trust among former adversaries and create a cohesive Western front.

But I thought the UN was going to do most of this. Why were we still worried about Soviet expansionism if the UN was going to "save us from the scourge of war" in the first place? One part of the answer was that the UN had almost immediately become preoccupied with maintaining the objectives of the British Mandate for Palestine, which the British themselves were never able to bring about. But this brought up another question. I asked Chrome AI, "Why were the British, who were quickly losing their empire and their status as a world power, given such prominence in maintaining the postwar order?" It answered,

The British were given a prominent role in the postwar order despite their declining status because they remained a central, indispensable member of the Allied "Big Three" that had won the war and shaped its immediate aftermath.

. . . Britain was a primary author of the rules and institutions that define the modern world:

The United Nations: Along with the U.S., USSR, and China, Britain was one of the "Big Four" that designed the UN at the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference. This role naturally led to their permanent seat and veto power on the UN Security Council.

The Atlantic Charter: In 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt co-wrote the Atlantic Charter, establishing the common principles (like self-determination and collective security) that would govern the postwar world.

In otber words, Winston Churchill, blah blah blah. But Winston Churchill blah blah blah was out of the running by July 1945, when he left the Potsdam Conference after the Conservatives lost an election. But come to think of it, maybe you could still justify making the UK a permanent member of the UN Security Council, but why France? Chrome AI Mode explained this as follows:

The original permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, USSR, UK, France, and China (P5)—were selected based on their status as the principal Allied victors of World War II and their perceived importance in ensuring post-war international peace and security. They were designated by the 1945 UN Charter architects, having led the fight against the Axis powers.

Except that France was simply not a "principal victor" of World War II. It was a principal Nazi collaborator. It did not "lead the fight" against the Axis powers. The answer goes on,

During the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the US, UK, USSR, and China (the "Big Four") drafted the Charter. France was added as the fifth member shortly after, largely due to strong support from Britain and the need for a major European power besides the USSR, despite initial hesitation from the US.

So both Britain and France were added to the UN Security Council primarily as a counterbalance to the USSR, but the idea that either could credibly serve in that role without the US was never more than a polite fiction, just like the Boulevard du Général Leclerc in Paris. But then I thought about Trump's recent remark that Keir Starmer is "no Winston Churchill. I asked Chrome AI Mode, "What would happen if Trump slipped some powerful drug into Keir Starmer's tea, and he suddenly began to channel Winston Churchill? would this change anything about Britain at all?" It answered,

That is a wild, cinematic premise. If Keir Starmer—known for his cautious, lawyerly, and "managerial" style—suddenly began channeling the rhetorical fire and unapologetic nationalism of Winston Churchill, the impact would be seismic, though perhaps not in the ways one might expect.

. . . If Trump (the catalyst) expected a subservient ally, he might be disappointed. Churchill was famously difficult and fiercely protective of British interests. A "Churchillian" Starmer might become more assertive with the U.S., demanding greater British influence on the world stage rather than following Washington's lead.

. . . In the short term, it would certainly end the "boring" label that has followed Starmer. It might inspire a temporary surge in national morale, but modern Britain is far more pluralistic and cynical than the 1940s. A leader channeling a ghost might find that charisma cannot fix structural issues like housing shortages or productivity gaps as easily as it could rally a nation against an existential threat.

But this goes to the question Jacob Rees-Mogg asks in the video embedded at the top of this post: where has the Royal Navy gone? It isn't even the Royal Navy Margaret Thatcher could summon in the Falklands War, where it maintained the unsteady tradition bordering on disaster it had established in both world wars. So far, I'm refraining from asking the oracle, "How much of modern history is based on polite fiction about the UK?" But I think Trump has already been asking this and other related questions.