The only program that all living creatures, including people, attend to after birth is to displace and alter matter. All living creatures are programmed with instincts, and that includes humans. When it comes to humans, only blind people and people who normally live with damage affecting their brains rely on their programmed instincts to displace and alter matter. The rest of humanity depends on their programmed ability to reason, communicate, and utilize complex tools, which are unique to humans, to achieve similar outcomes. People employ the programmed aptitude to reason, speak, and use the complex tools that they are fitted with to create or engineer shapes from lifeless objects. People use the living and lifeless things they displace or alter to access the primordial elements that can sustain their survival needs or earthly desires.

Global human security is the sum of the preservation of mankind plus the rest of the natural system. The relative security of all people depends on the natural system. The property that ensures the relative security of the natural system relies on the same invisible hand that Adam Smith described in his magnum opus, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, as the force that generates wealth in a free market.

The problem, however, is that the rate at which the natural system and humans reproduce are not one and the same. For example, the process of injecting a new human into life takes nine (9) months. It could take between 2 and 4 years for an apple tree to start to produce fruit. People can be produced anywhere on the surface of the earth. An apple tree can only grow in specific environments.

Another central problem is that two substances of matter can co-exist as one mass, and few repulse each other. Humans need to always coexist next to each other. The void space that a person frees when the body moves from one place to the next could remain as a void, or another person could fill it. The person who is occupying a void space cannot fill a void that becomes empty because humans cannot be in two places at the same time.

The aforementioned irreconcilable differences in how natural lifeless matter and humans coexist, along with the fact that two people cannot touch the same matter, highlight the necessity for a division of labor. From very early history until 1776, when the United States commemorated its independence, people switched between periods of war and peace to address the issue that one person’s security often came at the expense of another’s.

In 1776 our forebears proclaimed that “all men are created equal.”

From 1776 to our present day, the United States has been advocating liberalism and republicanism. Liberalism and republicanism are broad philosophical ideologies centered on the unalienable right of the individual, expecting citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties and in vilifying corruption.

In 1945, instead of the United States in the aftermath of the Second World War, it was proposed that all the countries that were defeated and the poor nations lose their way of life. Consequently, the rest of the allies, who had won the war, subjected all those people and countries to a new form of alien domination, exploitation, and subjugation, as was the case before the war or in past wars. This great country proposed that all the conquered countries be rebuilt and the people be treated humanely. The US proclaimed the necessity of bringing about a speedy and unconditional end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. In so doing, ushering in a milestone in the history of human rights unheard of before in the history of the world.

Mankind had high hopes that the international intergovernmental organization named the United Nations would manage to have a complete understanding of its mission and would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible. Unfortunately, this was not the case. This organization became caught up in what Christ said two thousand years ago man would never be able to rightly do. This was to serve both God and money. Instead of this international organization aspiring to be the sample of liberalism and republicanism in the world, money contaminated its administrators, converting them in the process into a force working on how to make people live in more fear and want rather than the opposite.

Corruption has been endemic throughout history. ThThe allegations of mismanagement, scandal, and corruption that permeate this organization are the same as those occurring on the other side of the council’s enclave, so it is not surprising when this organization is labeled as ineffective, corrupt, or biased.n effect, corruption should be higher on the grounds of this international organization, especially since its employees were allowed to manage public funds while being exempted from the jurisdiction of local laws in the exercise of their duties, including running internal tribunals.

Man can promote social change using a number of program theory principles. The question that begs an answer is about how to make the officials of this international organization start to be accountable, because it doesn’t make a difference on which side of a wall a man is standing; human choice would always be motivated to do wrong when two masters are served. The dilemma is much more complex.

Manufacturing is a human activity used in the production of finished goods. It is a process through which raw materials are transformed into a final product. Can mankind achieve the social change that everyone is willing to come together to see happen and consequently formed the intergovernmental organization named the United Nations to help with attaining it when the UN officials who are supposedly informing the planning process to create the required change (i.e., make citizens be ready to be independent in their performance of civic duties and in vilifying corruption) are displacing others to pursue the full development of their personalities? This means that the UN is undermining those who choose to follow the Charter by turning individuals who once knew how to build productive lives for themselves, their families, and their communities into confused people after the UN violated their rights.

In May 2017, the United Nations Tribunal dismissed a case after almost three years of waiting. In this case, the United Nations cannot erase the fact that this council violated its own rules, the UN Charter, and the UN Human Rights Declaration that it serves as its custodian for. The UN judicial system refused to address the claim of this US national against his former employer, UNOPS, and dismissed his case by arbitrarily recharacterizing his claim as an issue for which he had not sought justice from the UN. Thus, by doing so, the UN Tribunal confirms its bias and indicates that it was established to protect the interests of its powerful members rather than uphold the rule of law.

Can mankind accept that when a person is standing outside UN premises and he or she subjects another person to dehumanization acts, torture, degrading treatment, cruelty, or punishment, his acts are referred to as acts of crimes against humanity and punishable, but when the same person becomes a UN staff member and commits the same acts, he or she becomes privileged and immune?

Could mankind accept that the judicial system provides inmates who are on death row medical health coverage until their last day, and the UN denies staff who served this organization during 24 years access to after-service health insurance because the UN decided to restructure and dismiss a staff member when he was 54 and not 55 to qualify to take early retirement, or when it is not the fault of this staff member that he didn’t find a job back at the UN in this one year to have health coverage?

Should the United States continue to finance programs for the disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants through the United Nations so that the latter offers financial aid and medical coverage under this program to integrate ex-combatants socially and economically into society for free? When the UN is stripping and denying US nationals the right to resume their normal lives and careers after the UN violated its own rules and decided to disregard its duty of good faith and fair dealing to restore the career of this US national, when the US government is financing the programs that the UN implements from the taxes that this US national pays!

Can the US government expect liberalism and republicanism to prevail when its nationals are observing the Charter of the UN and practicing tolerance in accordance with what this country pledged all its citizens would start doing after 1945, while the organization that this country tasked with educating and teaching people on the importance of observing the same principles is using this council to deny its own nationals any rights and giving them a reason to justify why they should disregard peace and security?