Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
If you’d asked me last week to imagine the world’s “highest court” declaring climate science settled by judicial fiat, and then threatening the globe with reparations if governments don’t color inside the climate lines, I’d have poured myself a stiff gin-and-tonic and double-checked the URL.
But alas, welcome to 2025, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has just handed down an “advisory opinion” so ambitious, sanctimonious, and scientifically shallow that it reads less like a court ruling and more like the script for a very, very earnest United Nations bake sale. Their own summary of their latest lunacy is here.
Let’s set the table. The ICJ was asked by true-green climate activists to weigh in on whether countries that—brace yourself—aren’t “protecting the climate”, whatever that might mean, are guilty of internationally wrongful conduct.
Not just frowned upon. Not just eligible for a stern talking-to.
Nope: guilty. Legally at fault. Reparations, anyone?
Below is a view of the self-important, arrogant, pompous bench-warmers who think they rule both the world and your pocketbook and are the final arbiters of scientific truth.
And if you thought for a second that their ruling was confined to immediate, actual demonstrable harm, allow me to introduce you to the court’s new climate doctrine: “The environment is the foundation for all human rights.”
Human rights are based on the environment? I mean, who knew? Clearly, the authors of the US Declaration of Independence were blissfully ignorant of that claim when they said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
But nooo … apparently, the right to a “clean, healthy, and sustainable environment” is not just a good aspiration, but a precondition and foundation for everything from shelter to the Declaration of Independence.
In these several dozen pages of turgid judicial prose, the court repeatedly assures us that the science is both “unequivocal” and “consensual.” Take a broom and sweep aside the actual, messy debates among climatologists, physicists, statisticians, and economists. Why bother with IPCC’s footnotes and caveats, uncertainty ranges, or the fact that roughly half the scientific world’s population is busy fighting over causal attributions, model reliability, emission pathways, and feedbacks? The ICJ can clear all that up with a wave of the bench.
Never mind that many credentialed scientists—yes, those with tenure, lab coats, and neural networks—keep pointing out flaws in everything from the accuracy of climate models to the lack of robust evidence connecting certain weather events directly to CO₂ emissions.
Those tedious debates? Airbrushed away, replaced by a judicially anointed TRUTH, enforceable anywhere a lawyer can file papers and find a sympathetic press release.
The court then leaps from this supposedly airtight science to the conclusion that all countries are not just morally but legally required to throttle fossil fuels, pay reparations for “climate harm,” whatever that might be at any instant, and—here’s the kicker—restructure their entire economies and energy grids to satisfy the ambitions of the most anxious delegates in the UN General Assembly.
Oh, and it’s not just about emissions within your own border, but across the ether of international commerce, all the way down to how a can of soup is shipped from Kansas to Kazakhstan.
If this strikes you as a rather energetic reading of judicial authority, you’re not alone. The ICJ’s ruling doesn’t just interpret treaties—it rewrites them, pastes new concepts of liability on top, and then wags its finger at every government in creation, basically saying: “Comply, or risk being labeled an international outlaw … and subsequently shaken down for damages.”
(The good news is that this is an “advisory” opinion, not a judicial ruling, and fortunately, any actual power to enforce this is still missing from the court’s toolbelt. But you can expect a flotilla of lawsuits, climate tribunals, and legal NGOs licking their chops.)
Non-judicial conclusions abound in this ruling. The bench, now apparently staffed with philosophers and prophets, instructs the world’s engineers and energy analysts that mitigation cannot wait, adaptation is mandatory, and—lest you were planning on retiring quietly—the only acceptable future is one with emission reductions “of the highest ambition.” You expected law? Foolish you.
You get a political manifesto disguised in judicial robes.
Be clear, though. The danger here isn’t just about climate. It’s about precedent.
If international courts now claim the right to set social, economic, and technological policy for the entire planet by declaratory fiat, who needs parliaments, governments, scientific panels, or—heaven forbid—public debate?
If some green-hued imaginary version of “the environment” is an existential human right, why should courts not do the same for “algorithmic fairness,” “biodiversity equity,” “DEI”, “climate justice” or whatever cause rolls in next with a chorus of law students and a well-produced video appeal?
And don’t kid yourself—this opinion will ricochet through national courts, insurance companies, and boardrooms, emboldening activists to weaponize every multinational agreement in the book against anyone who doesn’t toe the line. The threat of endless litigation, the economic blackmail inherent in “reparations,” and the specter of legal insecurity will choke innovation, investment, and real-world progress faster than you can say “Paris Agreement.”
This ruling is a perfect example of why about two-thirds of the global population lives in countries that have flat-out REFUSED to be ruled by these activist lunatics in black robes … including, thankfully, the US. The US withdrew from the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, meaning it is not automatically bound by ICJ judgments. Me, I think we should withdraw from the ICJ entirely and let them play with themselves.
In sum, the ruling isn’t just an overstep. It’s a pole vault over the judicial fence, landing squarely in the realm of politics, philosophy, and scientific orthodoxy enforced by dubious legal muscle. We’re now one step closer to a world where the outcome of complex, unsettled questions gets dictated by robe and gavel, not science, reason, public debate, or reality … and that is a very dangerous precedent.
Good luck to us all. My solution?
US out of the UN entirely, including out of the ICJ and every other slimy tentacle of the UN. It is a snake-pit of vipers, totalitarians, anti-Semites, self-important “jurists”, and crazy green activists.
UN out of the US entirely. Move the headquarters to Ouagadougou or someplace where the locals need help, forbid the UN employees from using air conditioning so they can “protect the climate”, and see how many UN fat-cats and parasites living the good life in New York City suddenly quit to “spend more time with their families” …
My best to all, keep fighting the good fight,
w.
PS—Yeah, you’ve heard it before. When you comment, quote the exact words you’re discussing, so we can tell what you’re talking about.
The UN was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s bad impulses.
One of many.
The Roosevelt administration strove to avoid Woodrow Wilson’s mistakes in selling the League of Nations to the Senate. It sought bipartisan support and in September 1943 the Republican Party endorsed U.S. participation in a postwar international organization, after which both houses of Congress overwhelmingly endorsed participation. Roosevelt also sought to convince the public that an international organization was the best means to prevent future wars. The Senate approved the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2.
The United Nations came into existence on October 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the Charter.
The International Court – IJC- which is ‘separate to the UN organisation in Manhattan’- has existed under a different name since 1922 and its still at same building in Netherlands.
The ICC has a different building in Den Haage and was created in 1998
The League of Nations was a bad idea when Woodrow Wilson devised it, and as inconsistent with reality as the rest of his Progressive ideology. Warming it over
as the UN did not make it any more practical.
Even aside from rivalry with the Soviets, the UN was a failure in Kashmir. The Pakistanis demanded religious separation
as the basis of their state, while India did not. The desire to appeal to Muslim
countries led to no action against Pakistan when it sent irregulars into Kashmir to try to seize it.
Roosevelt sent a suspected Russian agent to San Francisco to do the setup. The Venona Papers later confirmed – Russian agent. As an aside: JFK was a stringer for an eastern newspaper and covered the beginnings of the UN. History is fun…..
Alger Hiss, by name. It is no wonder that the UN Charter and its symbol are both of Soviet origin.
Two observations.
First, the opinion is advisory only. So it is ‘full of sound and fury signifying nothing’, to paraphrase the Bard.
Second, (I just checked) the US withdrew from ‘compulsory’ ICJ jurisdiction years ago. Meaning the US chooses whether to submit to ICJ jurisdiction on a case by case basis. In this case, the Trumpian answer will be “pound sand”.
True, Rud, and I mentioned both those points. However, it will encourage endless lawsuits, claims and counterclaims, and further legitimize the alarmist climate lunacy.
And while Trump will indeed tell them to pound sand, fools in other countries or the next Democrat Administration will be more than happy to weaponize the decision.
Grrrr …
Best to you, my friend,
w.
Theres two different Courts. The International criminal court ICC – which the US has never been a party to the treaty created it.
The International Court of Justice IJC is Nation to Nation jurisdiction , but most decisions are ignored by US even when they have taken part.
Good point.
Agree with Grrrr.
Pour yourself a stiff gin-and-tonic. Good advice.
That’s the world we live in. Where is Planet B?
I always wanted to be an outlaw, like Willie and Waylon. Do you think the court will grant me the title?
Advisory only but here in the U.K. we have a PM and legal profession stuffed full of lawyers who view this as gospel and endorse it as far as they can
The UK is on its way of becoming a very unpleasant place to live.
Third world status…. then an Islamic caliphate. (or maybe the other way around)
All bought upon themselves.
Wrong, brought upon us by Governments that totally ignore the will of the people.
Whether ‘advisory only’ or not, the do-gooders will be sure to emphasise this as further justification of the need to save the planet with planet-destroying technologies.
E.g., in Australia our current ‘energy’ minister, (Blackout) Bowen is fond of stating ‘renewables are the cheapest form of energy’ based on a much maligned CSIRO analysis.
Ignore the costs left out of the report, just repeat and rinse the pre-approved conclusion so that they can spend more of our $s on wind and solar boondoggles.
Sound bites is all the populace hears.
The CSIRO and AEMO are complicit in the gradual destruction of the Australian economy and standard of living – cheered on by Labor. They are nothing but woke activist bastards.
Meanwhile, the scientifically illiterate and generally gutless Libs are still ”considering” net zero……
Willis’ most-excellent summation:
“US out of the UN entirely, including out of the ICJ and every other slimy tentacle of the UN.”
Can I get about 1e6 “Amens!” on that.
For me this pompous ICJ “advisory opinion” is the straw that finally broke the camel’s back.
That was my thought too.
I mean, the UN with all its self-bestowed righteousness and ‘authority’ hasn’t even managed to outlaw cigarette smoking everywhere, and it’s not contested by anyone anywhere anyhow that this really is a proven threat to health and a huge cost burden on taxpayers.
Plus, it’s just not cool anymore now that Hollywood has gone all pussy-bum and actors & actress don’t light up a fag every time they finish the rumpy-pumpy scenes.
About 1,350,000 people die per year from motor vehicle accidents ands 8,000,000 from tobacco use. Lotsa work here for the ICJ.
And how much effort has the ICJ expended in examining the probability that the COVID-19 pandemic was due to the release of a bioengineered virus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in Red China?
As of July 6, 2025, over 7,098,000 people have died from that virus based just on data reported to WHO.
— source: https://data.who.int/dashboards/covid19/deaths
????
Learn how to drive and quit smoking!!!
” the straw that finally “
No. Really? Were none of the parties of the conferees (#30 coming in November) enough to shake your resolve?
Actually, John, no, they were not! After seeing some twenty-nine of these circle-jerks come and go, with no real harm other than to the credibility of the attendees and to the pockets of the taxpayers in the various nations that funded these parties (small change in the larger context), I came accept them as just unavoidable bureaucratic fluff and waste.
Similarly, I actually was able to tolerate the UN’s IPCC creation and its releases of occasional “assessment reports” (hah!) knowing that there were many good scientists—as well as obvious, simple science and paleoclimatology—that expertly countered its fake, self-fulfilling “findings” on humanity being the predominate cause of climate change over the last 200 or so years (just examine the IPCC’s charter!). On this point, the IPCC is having any remaining credibility melt down in public as it continues to front CMIP (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) reports that show how far its climate “science” departs from possibly accurately predicting (here, defined as being within +/- 50% of actual delta-T) of the the world’s measured “climate” temperature beyond about 5 years into the future. Again, no real harm with such shenanigans, so no real foul.
However, as Willis has astutely pointed out, the just-announced ICJ “advisory opinion” opens the door for numerous ill-founded lawsuits and demands from ‘climate activists” for reparations (WTF?) across most nations of the world . . . a thing never enabled by COPs or even the IPCC due to its numerous stated CYA caveats.
No, but you can get 42 x 10^42 “Amens.”
I see what you did there!
The answer to the ultimate question….
Lol.
IIRC in the last episode of the Hitchhiker’s Guide it turns out the “42” answer was actually incorrect. All those millenia the AI computed, just to get the wrong result.
Remind anyone of something recent … like, say, CIMP6 GCMs ?
I missed that part. I do remember that they needed an even bigger universal computer to compute the ultimate question. LOL
So say we all.
1E6 AMEN
So mote it be.
Isnt it the decision only ‘advisory’, because the case was decided ex parte, with no counter case advanced by the major countries.
Just put it in the bin
Perhaps the United States should “decide” that the area that the UN building covers should be “mitigated” back to its original prior climate state. Bring in the bulldozers!
The Court is separate to the UN secretariat and general Assembly etc, which is Manhattan of course
Its in the Hague – below sea level
The International Court existed before the UN under a different name, since 1922
Most of The Hague is above sea level. Unfortunately on the wrong side of the dunes.
The descendants of the Lenape tribe, who sold Manhattan to the Dutch, should sue the UN in the ICC for stealing the property on which the UN building stands. The ICC would have to grant relief against the UN, right? That would be fun to watch.
I think we should give it to Trump so that it can be redevloped into condos.
Historically, when one group wins a war, they get to implement tribunals to punish those groups who opposed them. Unbeknownst to many of us, we’ve been capitulating to the Left in a one-sided war for many decades, hence there should be no surprise that they believe they’ve won and are now fully entitled to enact retribution. The good news is that more folks are beginning to wake up to the Left’s agenda and are beginning to push back. Should be interesting.
This is more and more looking like a Star Wars movie. Any idea who will be the first Darth Sidious ?
So this is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause.
Liberty dies when Direct Taxation is introduced. It gives those in power the right to know EVERYTHING about you.
You no longer a person just a number and numbers don’t have rights.
My reaction: “Shall I refresh your bong”, Mr. Justice”?
The “West” should rise again and put an end to the notion of One World Government. It’s a Marxist scam to gain control, steal Capitalist money, bankrupt the world, and keep cronies in power.
Perhaps the UN should move it’s headquarters and all ancillary bureau’s/departments to somewhere in “fly-over” country… say like the Dakota’s
I think more like Turkmenistan. Nowhere in the USA.
Offer to build them a new building and accommodations on the north coast of Alaska. If they’re right about climate change it would be a great place to be. Because they’re wrong, it will be a frozen hell from which they can rethink the error of their ways.
Gaza.
The court is in The Netherlands
I agree with the sentiment but – where the deplorables live? Not a wise idea to be using the same holier than thou terminologies of the city-dwelling elite retards who know what’s best for everyone else. How about Northern Alberta?
Maybe they should all be forced to read Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden (2024) and answer questions on it to make sure they understood it, including the part where the authors even used the bogus positive feedbacks of the climate cretins and criminals to show, mathematically, that there is no climate crisis and there never will be (except for the looming next descent into the temperature abyss).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381319117_Net_Zero_Averted_Temperature_Increase
How about the Swiss Alps, since its IPCC is obviously worried about “climate change” induced sea-level rise?
Nope, too nice. We need the Western equivalent of Siberia, hence my suggestion of Northern Alberta.
Why not beachfront in northern Alaska or the Northwest Territories in Canada?
Put them on the Arctic sea ice with the polar bears for company.
No, I think, as an international body, their HQ should be in the only territory in the world that isn’t “owned” by any one nation: Antartica.
International Court of what now? P!ss off.
Ouagadougou has some beautiful water-front property on which to construct a UN headquarters. However, with average high temperature in April around 40°C (104°F) the place should be underground. Air conditioning with solar and batteries might be possible. I’ll need a large grant to study this.
Mausoleum?
While I understand your (and many others ) frustration, the old adage still holds: Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.
The US needs to stay in the UN and keep it within our borders. Remember, the only way the US and UN were able to prevent the communist spread into Korea was because the Soviet Union walked out.
By that logic, the US should award statehood status to the PRC, Russia and North Korea.
BTW, I do believe the reason the US engaged in the Korean war—and lost some 37,000 soldiers in the process—was to prevent the spread of communism from North Korea to South Korea.
But perhaps I’ve been misinformed.
Little historical nit. We won the Korean War, right up to the moment the Chinese invaded N.Korea.
The main question is ‘How much control/influence do you gain vs how much do you lose’. I agree about Korea, but I don’t think Truman could have gotten a Declaration of War vs the NORKS. Remember how Patton was treated after WW2 for his active anti-communist beliefs. The UN resolution gave Truman the cover he needed to fight without that. The reason that resolution went through was because the Soviets walked out.
Thanks, Gino. Please supply details of any recent General Assembly resolution that actually achieved anything.
And while the UN minus Russia’s veto authorized the US and others to intervene in Korea, so what? After leaving office, President Harry S. Truman stated that he would still have ordered U.S. intervention in Korea even if the United Nations Security Council had failed to authorize force due to a Soviet veto. He declared: “No question about it.”
And that was 75 years ago, when the UN actually meant something and did some good. My grandmother and my mother both worked during and after the war for UNRRA, the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. That was the organization that later morphed into the UN after the war.
UNRRA did an immense amount of good, providing relief, training, and other services to the “DPs”, the “Displaced Persons”. My grandmother ran a succession of DP Camps for UNRRA, taking care of, feeding, clothing, and as in the photo below, overseeing training. Here she’s talking to the trainee bricklayers, who would be in great demand as Europe rebuilt. That’s her on the right.
But as they say in Hollywood … “That was then, and this is now.”
In modern times, the UN is totally impotent regarding wars.
Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988)
Rwandan Civil War and Genocide (1994)
Bosnian War (1992–1995)
Srebrenica Massacre (1995)
They do very little good and a lot of bad. They spread cholera in Haiti. Their Palestinian section is up to their ears with Hamas members, and the UN agency UNRWA has been ACTIVELY RECRUITING AND SUPPORTING HAMAS for years.
This was known within the UN. It has been going on forever, and nobody’s done a damn thing about it.
Why no action?
Because the UN General Assembly is a huge reservoir of the vilest blood-libel version of antisemitism, and we’re supposed to just ignore it because Muslims.
Can’t insult their culture, or something. I mean, their culture is based on hatred of and violence against “Jews, Infidels, and Crusaders”, plus Druze and anyone else who isn’t a Muslim, but we mustn’t mention that …
I can see a case, based on your objection, for us to continue to be a member of the UN in Ouagadogou, but only PROVIDED that we don’t give them one thin dime of taxpayer $.
And absolutely, the UN Headquarters should NOT be in New York. As I said, it is a nest of vipers. They clog the streets of NY, scoff at parking meters, and they and their kids can commit any crime without the US being able to do anything.
It’s a huge drain on the taxpayers, and not just the NY taxpayers. It’s mostly a bunch of fat pigs sitting around eating caviar and passing resolutions telling Israel how evil it is … get those scum out of our country and put the building to good use. NY would probably use it to house illegal aliens and criminals … but at least that would be a step up from the current inhabitants.
Best to you,
w.
To give you an idea of how i work:
I live rural and mice are a pretty regular problem. I am allergic to cats. Now, I could spread poison all over under my house but I like my owls, hawks, crows and buzzards which makes that a poor option. So these mice have made a couple holes in two closet floors that they use to get in. I do not fill those holes though. Mice just gnaw through somewhere else and damage more of my house. Instead I put the traps there and kill them, then feed my birds. Bad situations require active management.
I don’t believe the UN does any good any more, and you could count me as a supporter of complete abolishment if that could be achieved. I agree it’s an adversarial relationship. Giving up all influence of a body that has demonstrated a willingness to cause such mischief (to put it mildly) seems a bit foolish to me. I believe we should cut funding but retain influence. Under those conditions it might die on the vine rather than continue causing problems from somewhere else. Also, there needs to be a huge review of ‘diplomatic immunity’ in the US to put it mildly. UN ‘diplomats’ are the mice and should be dealt with as such. Someone suggested moving it to South Dakota, but I like South Dakota and wouldn’t want to do that to them. NY? Not high on my list of favorite places.
Think of my position more as ‘malicious compliance’ rather than outright exit, when it comes to UN policies. It is a dangerous body and I don’t think ignoring it is a wise policy.
And good on your mom! Actions are always better than words.
Maybe the plan is to charge Trump at the international criminal court
What with – making America great again, or some other overtly contrived “felony”.
For not protecting the environment from climate change
I thought they did already. Could be wrong. Keeping up with the lawfare is difficult.
Climate science having now been settled by 13 judges from 13 different countries, we can eliminate all funding of climate science of any kind whatever within the US Government and require under threat of really big tarrifs, all other nations to do so as well. Let’s say 50 days.
Further thoughts about this ICJ ‘advisory opinion’.
ICJ is one of 6 UN founding charter organizations.
Its primary role is to settle legal disputes between member states. US opt Ed out of ‘compulsory jurisdiction years ago. But even if compulsory, ICJ rulings are toothless, as any decision enforcement is up to the UN Security Council—itself proven mostly toothless. In fact, the UN as a whole has proven fairly useless.
Trump just decided to leave UNESCO because of its biases. He should reexit Paris Accords, and then UNFCCC.
ICJ secondary charter role is to render advisory opinions on ‘legal’ questions submitted by member states, as here. Not helpful, but there are already real court ‘global warming’ rulings in some countries in Europe that are in some ways worse.
Good Points . Its only useful when both sides have a dispute to settle – and both sides present their case before the Judges.
This is a ‘ reality TV court case , where they only hear one side.
Even Judge Judy hears both sides first.
The UN can not settle a dispute between Russia and Ukraine. NATO had a better luck with Greece and Turkey.
“He should reexit Paris Accords” He did on Jan 20th 2025 (just hours after being sworn in to his second term), he signed an executive order doing exactly that. UN was official informed of the US withdraw on Jan 27th 2025. Bureaucratically, it takes 1 year from notice to be officially out per the rules of the PA (so the “official” date of exist is Jan 27th 2026), but effectively we were out the moment Trump was re-elected and signed that EO.
Bureaucratically, yes, according to the Paris Accords.
However, it is an international treaty never ratified by Congress, so it seems the 1 year hiatus does not necessarily apply.
The Marxists have spent te last 70 years trying to take over every single institution they can find.
Bang goes another one.
End of the UN basically.
The UN has been worthless, run by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Russians for years and years.
I’ve always maintained the 3 most worthless organizations in the world are the UN, our congress (both houses) and the NCAA.
Just look at that row of unelected morons.
While, based on this “opinion,” morons seems to be applicable, I sincerely doubt they are unintelligent. This stinks of purpose.
Indeed.
I asked perplexity.ai: (bolds in answer supplied by perplexity)
Question: How did the ICJ address scientists disputing IPCC reports like Clintel in its climate advice?
Answer: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its advisory proceedings on climate change, did not address or give consideration to scientists or groups—such as Clintel—who dispute the findings of the IPCC. Instead, the ICJ relied heavily and explicitly on the IPCC as the authoritative source on climate science throughout the process.
Key points from the available evidence:
In summary, the ICJ’s approach gave exclusive scientific authority to the IPCC and provided no forum, reference, or weight to scientists disputing its reports, such as those from Clintel13. The Court did not discuss or acknowledge the existence of such scientific disagreement in its process, instead treating the IPCC’s consensus as fact. This approach has been criticized for its lack of transparency and its failure to incorporate procedural safeguards for alternative scientific views19.
Well as long as we’re going to accept the IPCC as the scientific authority, let’s note they have also determined:
Because of the “well mixed” property, it is impossible to determine which nation’s emissions have caused what environmental damage, so liability must be apportioned to all emitters based on their cumulative emissions since 1970.
Which according to perplexity.ai are:
for the 10 largest emitters. Going forward, China’s emissions will rise significantly if they keep to their plan to build a lot of new coal-fired power plants.
This assumes of course anyone can establish that actual damage has occurred. Last I heard Tuvalu was still above water.
There has been substantial damage done globally in the past three decades by transitioning to the ‘cure’ for so called anthropogenic climate change.
How much in the way of raw materials to build the ruinables infrastructure have been wasted? How much rural land has been poisoned by mining, manufacturing and disposal of this infrastructure? How much native flora and fauna have been lost or displaced? How much human suffering and degradation has occurred? How many rural communities have been torn apart?
And we’ve only just started. At least here in Australia.
This appears to be the last gasp of a dying cause.
I certainly agree that the UN and its bastard children needs a good spanking and I have advocated for US withdrawal from this tyrannical despotic organization that certainly has failed in its original charter to prevent wars.
Then too, NYC needs homeless shelters for illegal aliens. Why not convert the UN building for such a purpose?
“UN out of the US entirely. Move the headquarters to Ouagadougou or someplace where the locals need help,”
Hear, Hear!
I do disagree with you about one thing.Ouagadougou is to nice and too close to water. I think N’Djamena in Chad would be a better location.
I think it should be placed in the only truly international place on the planet: Antartica! All future “climate conferences” should also be held there as well.
The entire UN is corrupt to the bone. It is an organization in which the USA with a population of 350 million gets one vote. Tuvalu, population 11,300 also gets one vote. 50 of the 193 members are Muslim majorities which block vote against Israel on everything, and absolve themselves of the crimes against humanity that they perpetrate in their own countries, many of which are simply ghettos on the global stage. The specter of becoming a terrorist target bullies many countries into abstaining or even voting with the Muslim block.
The powerful Security Council is a joke, with every country vetoing any resolution against any of its allies who are not in the Security Council.
Most outrageous is UNRWA who’s foundational charter in 1949 ensured that Gaza would be a permanent welfare state, with generational refugee status (a right conferred on no other people in the world). It employs 33,000 people who would lose their jobs if Gaza developed the ability to govern itself. Thus, UNRWA ensures that Gaza never develops a self governing society and willingly supports the production of generational terrorists to ensure that a self governing society never emerges.
The whole thing degusts me. The ICC and ICJ are just insult added to injury.
I would feel bad for the thousands of high end hookers who would be left unemployed should the UN be shut down. Perhaps they could learn to code?
Not AI, perhaps AS (Artificial Sex)?
Willis E. Writes,
YES!!!
They have failed utterly in their original foundations purpose of preventing wars, defending human inalienable rights.
Now they are a money drain, and a pit of accumulating human darkness bent on trying to take over the world.
Not going to quote you, W..
But I agree with everything you said.
Very nice Willis. I suppose there is an international organization that isn’t completely worthless but I see very little value in the ones I know about. International organizations should have little to no power and no enforcement authority. They should be venues for airing issues and problems. A place to look for what can be done to help those in need. Not a world police force. I don’t think we should involve ourselves with these organizations and we damn sure shouldn’t waste our money and resources on them.
Get the US out of the UN and get the UN out of the US.
Heartily agree with US out of UN and UN out of NY.
My choice for new UN Headquarters would be a nice socialist workers paradise….Havana, Cuba comes to mind.
Of course, a few years under Mamdani and NYC may have risen to the glory and prosperity of Havana, or Kamapala,Uganda, his hometown