On 19 Sept 2017, Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary General, appeared in an interview that the BBC aired. The leader of the United Nations stated, “If the US withdraws from international affairs, the void left will be filled by others.” He further expressed his strong belief that the US’s disengagement from international affairs is harmful to the United States and that “the US will pay a price.”

Unless the United Nations has been tipped about a particular plot that is being masterminded against the United States, the Center for Modernity Planning and Assessment begs to disagree.

All that humans do during their lives is displace and alter matter. This reality presents us with two problems:

(i)No matter what people may do during their lives, without access to knowledge, it will not be possible for them to access the primordial elements that can sustain their survival needs or earthly desires.

(ii) If humans do not increase their social space and thereby upgrade the abundance and quality of natural matter, they will not be able to increase their knowledge to sustain either their survival needs or earthly desires.

Moreover, since two people cannot touch the same matter or occupy the same void at the same time, this reality prompts the need for the division of labor. The implications of the division of labor make two participants specialize distinctively, but most importantly, they develop two distinct types of knowledge.

All humans do not have the same degree of natural ingenuity, and therefore, they express their nature in the variety of creative work they do differently.

From very early history up to 1943, mankind linked the relative security that any given individual will profit from during life to become a function of the specific specialized task that each member of the human family devotes time to pursuing, plus the social space that one freezes, material things that one accumulates on a cumulative basis, and the degree of knowledge that one develops.

In 1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed new ideological perspectives that surpass the aspirations that his predecessor Woodrow Wilson suggested in 1918 to ultimately attain world peace. The United States proposed that all people develop friendly relations based on respect for the principle of equal rights.

In other words, this great country proposed that the void space that Guterres is concerned others would come and fill if the US withdrew from international affairs become available for any person or nation to grab.

Moreover, to ensure objective collaboration in the economic field based on respect for the principle of equal rights, especially since not all nations possess the same geography. The United States made the No. 1 condition to become a member of the new association of nations that replaced the League of Nations to be based on adhering to no territorial aggrandizement.

The question that begs an answer is straightforward: Is the UN leader telling us that at this Global Council, the US is disregarding collective decisions, contrary to the principle of sovereign equality on which this association of nations is supposed to operate? Guterres fears that another country will fill the void left by the US if it withdraws from international affairs. Is he trying to tell us something that we don’t know?

Hallucinations and delusions are perceptions that resemble real perceptions. TThe United States has faced significant criticism since it began acting as a global policeman, and many people today believe that this country proposed the global council to serve its own strategic interests or political motives. Now, the criticism is coming from none other than the person who should know better about why the United Nations was created. Whoever peddles the idea that the United States or any nation is working on expanding its strategic interests on the grounds of this global council is peddling fiction. If this were really the case, the US wouldn’t be threatening to withdraw from international affairs.

In fact, those who criticize US involvement in international affairs must know that this country was a superpower before the United Nations was created in 1945. Similarly, it was the US that proposed the development of friendly relations among people and nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights. If so, those who criticize the US should know that collaborating in the economic field on the basis of respect for equal rights forces the human reason to do wrong and against what the senses consider is in its best interests to preserve the human body. This statement means that when the United States proposed back in 1943 to see that all members of the human family start to collaborate in the economic field based on respect for the principle of equal rights, the United States proposed a measure that is totally counterproductive to preserve its own best interests and not to kidnap the world. Most importantly, this also signifies that such a measure is incongruous with how capitalism is advanced, yet the United States is accused all the time of being its voice or sponsor. The United States seeks to work collaboratively with other nations and respects collective decisions, rather than imposing its will or hijacking the world at the United Nations or anywhere else. The United States is immersed at the United Nations, working to accomplish for humanity what religion has failed to achieve since man started believing in supernatural forces. Since 1948, this great country has also been paying with the most precious thing a nation could give to educate and teach people on how to take appropriate measures to not let the protection of the material interests that people devote their lives to pursuing interfere with making others feel that they are being deprived of pursuing the free and full development of their personalities, and we should all be grateful.

Regarding the information that Guterres is sharing about potential costs to US citizens if the country withdraws from international affairs, the United Nations should be aware of the date when the US celebrated its independence. If the UN’s claims are true, the US shouldn’t have become a superpower by 1945. The US should have stayed from 1776 until 1945 and beyond, ending an internal strife to start a new one. This is because, if, as I said before, knowledge and social space are what ensure that the relative security of one person becomes the forgone security of another, then the continuous internal displacement that the inhabitants of this country were undergoing from 1776 to 1945 to fill void spaces, as Guterres put it, should have weakened this country and not made it a superpower. Therefore, if after the patriots of this country in 1776 professed that all people are equal, the race that the citizens of this country evoked to pick who would fill a void whenever one became free is what made the US a superpower. The US’s 1945 proposal to the world is in humanity’s best interest.

Most importantly, if our analysis is correct, then the US should have become much stronger technologically, economically, militarily, culturally, etc. in the past 72 years as compared to what its own situation was like in 1945. This means that the threat the US poses today in the world is not about what price the US would pay if it withdrew from international affairs, as the leader of the UN is peddling, but what price the world would pay if the US decided to scale down or withdraw.

In conclusion, it is a pity that the UN derailed from being an agency for achieving world peace and cooperation as Franklin D. Roosevelt and other founders expected this association of nations to become, and it switched into becoming, as is presently the case, a government in exile or a social welfare administration. This latest slipup from the horse’s mouth on what the United States could pay if this country withdraws from international affairs is worrying. It shows that if the team that Guterres depends on to do his job had any clue whatsoever about what this association of nations was set up in 1945 to accomplish, then the UN could have spared all the lives that the US and other nations have sacrificed since 1945 to make the world safer.

The next generation of the United Nations (or United Nations II) is not going to be a very difficult task to mount. In fact, our forebears already told us what this association of nations is supposed to accomplish. Let us just wait to see for how long the patience of the United States and other nations with the present organization is going to run before work on the new one is officially commissioned.