How To Fix The United Nations
Copyright © 2005 Tim Daneliuk (musings@tundraware.com).  Permission to freely reproduce this material is hereby granted so long as this material is reproduced in its entirety (including this Copyright notice).  Such reproduction is only permitted when there is no remuneration involved.  Excerpting and quoting material herein is also permitted so long as a citation to the original source and authorship is included.

OK, I'll admit it.  For the longest time I've had this antipathy towards the United Nations.  It seems to me that the UN accomplishes little, spends a great deal of (Western) money doing so, and gives far more voice to anti-democractic tin pot dictatorships than it does the civilized nations of the world.

Not too long ago, an acquaintance of mine changed my mind.  He pointed out that, no matter how ineffectual, stupid, and maddening the UN was on the whole, it still serves an important function:  It gives nations of all sizes and status a place to holler at each other and thereby reduces the tendency for them to go to war.    It also provides some framework for defining international law.  This too helps stabilize inter-nation conflict.

I have to admit he had a point.  If you look at the wars of the last couple of decades, the worst of them have been among tribal and/or religious groups that have no national identity and thus no UN representation.  Among UN members there is sometimes significant violence, but it is tiny by comparsion.  Even something like the recent Iraq war - even counting the civilian dead - does not remotely compare with, say, the tribal wars in Africa among the Tutsis and Hutus.   In effect, he was saying that a broken UN is better than no UN ... and I had to grudgingly concede his point.

But, this doesn't mean we can't improve the United Nations - an organization rife with corruption, waste, and general nicompoop-like behavior. I have an idea I think will help.   I am convinced that the biggest problem with the UN is that, for most of its membership, getting to work there is a boondoggle in New York City.  Think about it.  You're freezing your keester off somewhere in Northern Russia or roasting in sub-Saharan Africa and you get an all-expenses paid trip to NYC for a few years.  Would you go?   Yup, in a New York Minute!

So, what we need to do is provide some mechanism that ensures the people going to the United Nations are there for the Right Reasons instead of just going to shop on 5th Avenue.  And I know just how to do this.  Let's move the UN where there are no other distractions.   I personally favor Adak, Alaska out on the end of the Aleutian Chain.  Adak is perfect.  It has excellent infrastructure - the US military has had a base there for decades.   It is (really) remote which makes security much easier.  It's set in an absolutely gorgeous natural area. You can actually see just how gorgeous the couple of days a year it doesn't rain or snow.  But most of all, there's nothing else to do!  As anyone whose been to Adak can attest, only people with a serious mission would ever go there voluntarily.   The military mostly had to order people to go there - I am fairly confident there were few, if any, Adak "volunteers".

In one act we could change the face of the UN.  It's participants could be pretty much be counted upon to be in Adak for the Right Reasons.  We'd free up some primo real estate in New York City for more useful applications.  The cost of running the UN, even with the increased travel and housing costs, would plummet. (You have to be prepared to stay longer than you expected in Adak because of the weather, but Quonset Huts are cheap to build). 

I'm certain we can get Alaskan political and popular support.  After all, Don Young, Alaska's representative in the US House, is notorious for his porkbarrel plundering of the Federal treasury.   I'm sure he'd leap at the chance to further cement his reputation as a Congressional Big Spender in moving the United Nations to Alaska.  Moreover, there is not today (as best I know) a 7-11, Dunkin Donuts, Walmart, or Sears in Adak.   But there would be within minutes of the United Nations opening its doors there.  This would be quickly followed, no doubt, by Saks, Bloomingdales, Burberry, and Dunhill.  The salutary effect on the Alaskan economy would sell the project instantly.  So, yes, there would be shopping, but it wouldn't quite be like NYC.

But most importantly, to the degree humanly possible, we'd see Peace In Our Time.  One 18 month stint in Adak would convince most career diplomats - who think a small limousine is a terrible inconvenience - to a) Make peace and go home  or b) Just go home and send some other poor schnook in their place.   Either way, every con arist, carpetbagger, political hanger on, or other international miscreant wouldn't be banging on the door trying to get into the "Northern" UN.

The image of Kofi Anon trying to scam money out of the Oil-For-Food program while freezing his buns off bundled up in 23 layers of clothing reduces me to giggles.   This, my friends, it an Idea Whose Time Has Come!  The United Nations belongs in Adak.

P.S.  There is one small problem with this plan.  If implemented, all the cab drivers around the new United Nations would probably speak English.