And a fine piece of real estate it is. Nestled along the East River at 42nd Street the land itself was purchased by the Rockefellers in 1946 for a whopping 8.5 million dollars. The property affords panoramic views of the river and the New York skyline. Zoned commercial, this acquisition includes four buildings, in need of modest refurbishing, and could be easily restored as office space or condominiums.

Following the purchase in 1946, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. donated the land for use by an organization dedicated to world peace and prosperity. An organization whose primary mandate was to follow in the footsteps of it’s predecessor, promote international cooperation and achieve peace and security. By 1950 the buildings were completed and the United Nations was open for business.

This wasn’t the first attempt at world peace. As the victors met, at Versailles in 1919, to divvy up the spoils of World War One, Field Marshall Jan Christiaan Smuts put forth the idea of the League of Nations. Smuts was a South African who served Britain meritoriously during the First World War. It was the goal of the League of Nations to promote international peace, cooperation, security and prosperity.

As we know, the League of Nations failed in its’ mission and collapsed as World War Two began. But Smuts was undaunted and at the end of World War Two he again put forth the idea of a world body determined to promote peace, prosperity and international cooperation. This new and improved version was to become the United Nations. The first General Assembly was held in London and from then on it occupied the new digs in New York City.

(for trivia buffs, Smuts was the only person to sign the treaties ending WWI and WWII. He was also the only person to sign the charters of both the League of Nations as well as the United Nations)

There was plenty of international discussion leading up to the inception of the UN and some of the best can be found in the post below which looks at a conversation between Churchill and Stalin at Yalta, some diary entries from Joseph Goebbels and an excerpt from Anthony Edens’ autobiography, “Memoirs: The Reckoning”, which discusses in detail the Yalta meetings between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin.

Also to be found within the post below is a brief list of United Nations mandates and projects which, over time, have pretty much stumbled and failed. The writings are far too extensive to include in this post but are well worth reading through.

But it is in this present day that the United Nations has raised the concern of more than a few Americans. The scandals, bribery, nepotism and downright theft have raised the eyebrows of even the staunchest of UN supporters.

Accusations, depositions and subsequent resignations followed exposure of the 'oil for food program' which singlehandedly financed Saddam Hussein for a decade or better. Large sums of that money also financed the son of the seventh Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, of Ghana.

UN peacekeepers in central Africa have been accused of child molestation and the rape of the very people they were sent to protect. UN peacekeepers have completely failed in Darfur and the Sudan and within that failure seemed to care even less. Bosnia? Somalia? Cambodia? UN peacekeepers weren’t up to the task in their occupation of the buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Financing of the United Nations is generated from the member nations. There are 192 members of the United Nations. Annual assessments are levied based on the ability of the individual nation to pay.

Currently the largest bankrollers of the United Nations are: United States 22%, Japan 19.63%, Germany 9.82%, France 6.5%, the UK 5.57%, Italy 5.09%, Canada 2.57%, Spain 2.53% and Brazil 2.39%. These percentages are of 100% total operating budget. Countries not listed are assessed at less than 2.0%.

The corruption notwithstanding, the United Nations had rendered itself impotent most recently in matters concerning Iraq and Iran and North Korea. How many times did Saddam Hussein laugh in the face of UN mandates? Didn’t the United Nations tell Iran to stop it’s nuclear expansion by August 31st? Has anyone heard anything in the month and a half that has since passed?

Wasn’t that the President of Iraq sitting before the General Assembly last month basically telling them to take their mandate and shove it? To coin a phrase heard before here on blogstream, don’t even get me started on Hugo Chavez. Now the UN is going to huddle up and talk about North Korea and their alleged nuclear bomb tests. Does anyone think anything will come out of that before, say, 2008?

There comes a time when things just outgrow their usefulness. Why just last week my blogger friend, FUZZY, threw out his 8 track for a cassette player. The hundreds of committees comfortably ensconced within the United Nations are stumbling all over themselves. Cristo himself would run out of red tape trying to wrap the place up for arts’ sake.

Over the past 50 years the United Nations has morphed into a parody of itself. It seems no longer interested in world peace but rather in blatant, and often illegal, self promotion.

Would the world be better off if the United Nations were to disband? Would the world be better served if the United Nations relocated to the Middle East or central Africa? Do you think the United States needs to be in the United Nations and, conversely, do you think the United Nations needs to be in the United States?

24 January 1946
General Assembly adopts its first resolution. Its main focus: peaceful uses of atomic energy and the elimination of atomic and other weapons of mass destruction.

7 January 1949
A UN envoy, Ralph Bunche, secures cease-fire between the new State of Israel and Arab States.

4 January 1969
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination comes into force

13 November 1974
General Assembly recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people".

18 December 1979
General Assembly adopts the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, covering political, economic, social, cultural and civic values.

25 November 1981
General Assembly adopts Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

December 1984
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar sets up a UN office for Emergency Operations in Africa to help coordinate famine relief efforts.

10 December 1984
General Assembly adopts the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

September 1987
Efforts of UNEP lead to the signing of the Treaty on the Protection of the Ozone Layer -known as the Montreal Protocol -a follow-up to the 1985 Vienna Convention on the Ozone Layer.

17 June 1992
Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali issues "An Agenda for Peace" on preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building.

6 May 1994
The Secretary-General produces a report on "An Agenda for Development", a blueprint for improving the human condition.

10 September 1996
The General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. This is a turning point in the history of efforts towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The treaty was opened for signature on 24 September.



Notes from a conversation between Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin, Yalta, 1945.
Winston Churchill: "The peace of the world depends upon the lasting friendship of the three great powers, but His Majesty's Government feel we should be putting ourselves in a false position if we put ourselves in the position of trying to rule the world when our desire is to serve the world and preserve it from a renewal of the frightful horrors which have fallen upon the mass of its inhabitants. We should make a broad submission to the opinion of the world within the limits stated. We should have the right to state our case against any case stated by the Chinese, for instance, in the case of Hong Kong. There is no question that we could not be required to give back Hong Kong to the Chinese if we did not feel that was the right thing to do. On the other hand, I feel it would be wrong if China did not have an opportunity to state its case fully. In the same way, if Egypt raises a question against the British affecting the Suez Canal, as has been suggested, I would submit to all the procedure outlined in this statement. Colleagues on the Security Council."

Joseph Stalin: "I would like to have this document to study because it is difficult on hearing it read to come to any conclusion. I think that the Dumbarton Oaks decisions have, as an objective, not only to secure to every nation the right to express its opinion, but if any nation should raise a question about some important matter, it raises the question in order to get a decision in the matter. I am sure none of those present would dispute the right of every member of the Assembly to express his opinion. "Mr. Churchill thinks that China, if it raised the question of Hong Kong, would be content only with expressing opinion here. He may be mistaken. China will demand a decision in the matter and so would Egypt. Egypt will not have much pleasure in expressing an opinion that the Suez Canal should be returned to Egypt, but would demand a decision on the matter. Therefore, the matter is much more serious than merely expressing an opinion. Also, I would like to ask Mr. Churchill to name the power which may intend to dominate the world. I am sure Great Britain does not want to dominate the world. So one is removed from suspicion. I am sure the United States does not wish to do so, so another is excluded from the powers having intentions to dominate the world."

Winston Churchill: "May I answer?"

Joseph Stalin: "In a minute. When will the great powers accept the provisions that would absolve them from the charge that they intend to dominate the world ? I will study the document. At this
time it is not very clear to me. I think it is a more serious question than the right of a power to express its intentions or the desire of some power to dominate the world."

Winston Churchill: "I know that under the leaders of the three powers as represented here we may feel safe. But these leaders may not live forever. In ten years' time we may disappear. A new generation will come which did not experience the horrors of war and may probably forget what we have gone through. We would like to secure the peace for at least fifty years. We have now to build up such a status, such a plan, that we can put as many obstacles as possible to the coming generation quarreling among themselves."

Diary entry: Joseph Goebbels, April 3, 1945.
As far as the political crisis of the war is concerned dissatisfaction with the Kremlin's policy is increasing among the American public. The San Francisco Conference is already written off almost everywhere. It is hoped to substitute a new Three-Power meeting for it. No one knows, however, whether Stalin will agree to this. Stalin is treating Roosevelt and Churchill like dunces and it is only to be hoped that this sort of provocation will gradually make the pot boil over in the Western enemy camp.

As far as the San Francisco Conference is concerned, it is already a thing of the past. It is thought that Churchill intends to fly to Moscow again to try to persuade Stalin to give way. The progress of the political crisis among our enemies depends on the next fortnight's developments. The main and deciding factor is whether we succeed in organising some form of resistance in the West again.

The Jews have applied for a seat at the San Francisco Conference. It is characteristic that their main demand is that anti-semitism be forbidden throughout the world. Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.

Diary entry: Joseph Goebbels, April 4, 1945.
Smuts has made an extraordinarily gloomy speech at the Imperial Conference now sitting in London. He regards San Francisco as the last chance for civilised mankind. If San Francisco fails, then what we regard as cultured mankind would be doomed. A human catastrophe of unimaginable proportions would be the inevitable result. A third world war would be waged with new and even more devastating weapons. What remained of mankind would be neither worthy nor capable of existence.

From “Memoirs: The Reckoning”, Anthony Eden, 1965.
Roosevelt was, above all else, a consummate politician. Few men could see more clearly their immediate objective, or show greater artistry in obtaining it. As a price of these gifts, his long-range vision was not quite so sure. The President shared a widespread American suspicion of the British Empire as it had once been and, despite his knowledge of world affairs, he was always anxious to make it plain to Stalin that the United States was not 'ganging up' with Britain against Russia. The outcome of this was some confusion in Anglo-American relations which profited the Soviets.
Roosevelt did not confine his dislike of colonialism to the British Empire alone, for it was a principle with him, not the less cherished for its possible advantages. He hoped that former colonial territories, once free of their masters, would become politically and economically dependent upon the United States, and had no fear that other powers might fill that role.
Winston Churchill's strength lay in his vigorous sense of purpose and his courage, which carried him undismayed over obstacles daunting to lesser men. He was also generous and impulsive, but this could be a handicap at the conference table. Churchill liked to talk, he did not like to listen, and he found it difficult to wait for, and seldom let pass, his turn to speak. The spoils in the diplomatic game do not necessarily go to the man most eager to debate.
Marshal Stalin as a negotiator was the toughest proposition of all. Indeed, after something like thirty years' experience of international conferences of one kind and another, if I had to pick a team for going into a conference room, Stalin would be my first choice. Of course the man was ruthless and of course he knew his purpose. He never wasted a word. He never stormed, he was seldom even irritated. Hooded, calm, never raising his voice, he avoided the repeated negatives of Molotov which were so exasperating to listen to. By more subtle methods he got what he wanted without having seemed so obdurate.

Bibliography:

Milestones In United Nations History, A Selective Chronology, Department of Public Information, United Nations, New York, New York.

Anthony Eden, “Memoirs: The Reckoning”,1965.

James F. Byrnes, “Speaking Frankly”, 1947.

To many of you the sixties are nothing more than legend. I often wonder how history books in schools these days handle them. To some of us the sixties were very real and have provided a lifetime of memories. From three tragic assassinations to significant advancements in civil rights. From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Sea of Tranquility. From the Donna Reed Show to the pot and mud of Woodstock. From Les Paul and Mary Ford to Jimi Hendricks and Janis Joplin.

The sixties were an easy to measure decade that brought about major changes in the group think of the United States as a culture. Eventually the “don’t trust anyone over thirty” generation had children of their own and, although I am starting to feel ancient right about now, those children had children.

What’s lacking in these children of the children of the children is a defining moment that can account for where we now find ourselves as a society, as a culture. When did responsibility and accountability become old hat? When did we begin to accept that nobody did nothin’? When did the open minded concept of everybody being in charge dwindle to the reality that nobody is in charge?

What decade, or half decade, or glaring event can we examine and, within that examination, deduce with a modicum of certainty that it was then that we collapsed into this maelstrom of mediocrity?

It’s everywhere. We all encounter it everyday and we grin and bear it. Maybe we have brought it upon ourselves, this insidious growth of mediocrity. Maybe we have looked the other way for so many decades that looking the other way has become the way.

Driving through the Taco Bell we give them real money and twenty feet later accept, in exchange, a mystery bag. In our hearts we know it’s a mystery bag but we don’t want to hold up the line so we drive away.

Holding up the drive through line these days could get you beat up or shot. Yelled at and honking horns would be the minimum reaction. Suffice it to say that holding up the line, any line, will induce a response of intolerance.

A mile down the road we pull the enchilada out of the bag. We wanted a chalupa but we grumble a bit and say something like “it figures” or “I’m not surprised”. It isn’t worth the hassle to go back and, in the end, we grin and bear it and eat the whole enchilada, literally and figuratively.

From the ridiculous to the sublime as we visit the doctor. We are expected to arrive fifteen minutes before an appointment that was already scheduled fifteen minutes ahead of the time we are actually to see the doctor.

We sit and seethe and flip through magazines because everybody in the room is sitting and seething and flipping through magazines. We put on the face of nonchalance and grin and bear it.

When our time with the doctor comes it usually defies the definition of brevity. A wink, a nod and a handshake. Our problem is beyond them but they know a specialist... . We thank them and they leave through the not yet closed door they came in. MD, mediocre doctor.

Sports figures shove their mediocrity down our throats as well. A baseball player hits a home run and trots (say struts) around the base paths pounding his chest, blowing kisses, making the sign of the cross and pointing to the sky where some relative now lives. Look at me, I’m a hero because I am, well, doing my job and at that, only rarely.

Give me the damn ball! I scored a touchdown and want to dance and celebrate and hoot and holler. More blown kisses, more celestial relatives. I know I’m just doing my job but, hey, sometimes I do a little more. I’m paid to be on the team. Anything else is a bonus. As a matter of fact, I’m not paid to be on this team, I’m paid to not be on some other team.

The service industry has become extinct. What service do you receive without a hand stuck out at you? The valet at the hotel will park your car for you but he/she has expectations of you. The bellman will help you with your luggage to the front desk but, uh.

Another bellman will help you with your luggage to your room if you will, uh. Another worker will even bring over priced room service to your door for an additional charge which, in case you forget, is usually added anyway even though the service is predictably, well dare I say, mediocre?

Ever take a cruise? All the amenities are happily provided and you are not expected to extend any gratis for them; until the last night. At the big hoopla, envelopes are passed out and the accumulative gratis is inferred. How naive I was. I was impressed they were actually going the extra mile.

I thought they were employees rising above the mediocrity. I thought my heartfelt thanks were appreciated. How unbelievably naive. They were banking nice. If you plan on taking a cruise save a chunk of loot for the last night. Don’t blow the last of your wad in Cozumel or you will schlep your bags in Ft. Lauderdale.

How did we get here? How, or what, has happened that we as a culture accept just getting by as the norm? On my honor I will do my best to do my job, and nothing more. Is it nothing more than the cumulative effects of a generation of underachievers? Maybe it’s just me.

There’s an extremely remote chance that you have yet to be touched by any salient point of mediocrity. If that’s your situation be patient. Elections are less than a month away.

In Paradise, Pennsylvania, there stands a pottery shop. While the clay is being formed, customers can choose from assorted pieces and designs and etch a message with a tool that looks like a crochet needle. The piece is fired overnight and can be picked up the next day. I chose a distelfink and, on the back of a pie plate, printed: Bev and Tom Lost In Paradise: 10-23-84.

I still have that pie plate and use it twice a year. It’s perfect for my secret recipe orange-pecan pie. When not in use it hangs within a holder on my kitchen wall. I give it a casual passing glance everyday.

Tonight I was frying a few pieces of bologna for a sandwich. Tuna, hamburger and chicken get old after a while. From the front room I could hear the television news covering the funerals in Paradise, Pennsylvania. I turned off the flame and stared at my pie plate. As the words flowed into the kitchen my eyes welled up.

I thought of the beautiful countryside that embraces the communities of Paradise and Intercourse and Bird-In-Hand and Lancaster. The words from the television went straight to my heart as I wept through my admiration of the Amish people.

Humble, unassuming folk who so thoroughly embrace their love of their religion. And in their religion lay the strength to heal a community so overwhelmed by unimaginable tragedy.

How big I had become, I thought to myself. How strong. How right I was. How dare anybody. I am me. The unshakeable strength of the Amish community taught me how small I had become. How weak. How wrong. In my hubris I had lost sight of the very spiritual tenant I should hold most dear.

That beautiful Amish community 3000 miles away, and the little pie plate 3 feet away, opened my heart to the solace and comfort of forgiveness. It’s the healing force I have long sought and I joyously welcome into my life.

Lucy and prisonerofhope, from the very bottom of my heart I forgive you. It is my prayer that you reopen your blogs to the many who miss you.



And I extend this prayer to our community. Members of our blogstream, I implore you to go to your blog this day and post your heartfelt forgiveness to someone. No apologies, no ifs, no ands, no buts, no emoticons. Just your healing words of forgiveness. As Paradise, Pennsylvania heals from the greater tragedy so shall we from the lesser.



_______________
I sincerely appreciate your comments but feel it would be inappropriate for me to respond. This post is about us and the comments are about you. I encourage your comments for others to see.

What is it with these Muslims? I have long thought that the wiser approach to peace in the Middle East was to try to better understand Islam. To better understand what motivates them. Alas, I have grown weary of trying. There is nothing to understand. The simple truth seems to come down to this: if you utter so much as one single word which casts Muslims in a less than bright light; you need to be dead. Nothing else will do. Dead.

This current imbroglio with the Pope brings to light, yet again, the inner workings of the minds of Muslims. Now, the Pope is not a stupid man. On the contrary, the Pope is a brilliant human being. A Catholic would hold the Pope in higher esteem than, say, a Lutheran would, but there would be a universality to the basic notion that the Pope is no idiot. I believe the Pope knew there would be a reaction to his recent comments. I believe his choice of references was deliberate.

Now the Muslims are back in the streets demanding an apology. Do any of you readers think an apology would ever be enough? No! Muslims want the Pope dead. Nothing else will do. Dead. It is not possible to apologize to a Muslim. Apologies fall on deaf ears. Apologies are for Westerners and sissies. Muslims ain’t no sissies! As a group they have an overwhelming inferiority complex but they ain’t no sissies.

If you have an axe to grind with the Pope and burn down an Eastern Orthodox Church; chances are you’re a Muslim. On the other hand if you have an axe to grind with the Pope and shoot a Catholic nun in the back, well you’re also probably a Muslim. Ah, sweet Islam. Come you unenlightened people of the world.

Come and embrace our religion of peace. Allah be praised! Say it. Say it now or we will kill you. Remember that fellow a few months back in Pakistan or Afghanistan that wanted to leave Islam and become a Christian? They wanted to execute him. This religion of peace wanted him dead. Nothing else will do. Dead.

Jews? Dead. Christians? Dead. Westerners? Dead. Science? Dead. Culture? Dead. Civilization? Dead. This religion of unthinking, mindless followers, this religion of peace, will settle for nothing less. There is no reasoning possible. There is no dialogue possible. There is no middle ground, no compromise. The grand Ayatollah of PooBah says kill all non-Muslims and the crowd hits the streets, guns ablazin’.

Muslims are called to prayer five or six times a day. I guess Mohammed knew his followers had short attention spans. Anyway, have you ever wondered just what the hell they are praying so fervently about? Five or six times a day they flock to the mosque, men over here women over there, kneeling, and a frequent kow-tow, about what?

Peace? Love? Brotherhood? Acceptance? Tolerance? Kindness? Wisdom? Understanding? Enlightenment? Guidance? If so you Muslims need to make that mosque trip ten or twelve times a day because five or six isn’t getting it done. Five or six trips are only leaving you frustrated and pissed off. It’s like they are hearing all of the joke except the punch line, as if Paul Harvey weren’t telling them the rest of the story.

Coming to terms with Islam seems almost impossible doesn’t it? But wait! Keep hope alive. Even though we have been waiting for decades we will soon hear from the worlds’ greatest living oxymoron. A moderate Muslim. Seems like something only John Lennon could imagine. A moderate Muslim.

Of course we may never hear from a moderate Muslim because they already know what we in the West are painfully learning the hard way. Moderate Muslims know the best path is to find comfort and safety in the silence of the lambs. If they speak out, their religion of peace will want them dead. Nothing else will do. Dead.