Let’s define evolution as the gradual development of something simple into a more complex form. Let us examine two cases to see how their evolutions have progressed from simple to complex forms.

The spread of Christianity begins with the teachings of Jesus Christ (c. 4 BC—c. AD 30). In 1494, Pope Alexander VI bestowed on Queen Isabella I of Castille and King Ferdinand II of Aragon of Spain the title of “Catholic King and Queen” in recognition of their defense of the Catholic faith within their realms. During the reign of the Catholic Monarchs, the Jews and Muslims who didn’t convert to Christianity were arrested, imprisoned, and tortured.

During the Second World War, our forebears proclaimed that it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to future wars, that a new intergovernmental organization be created. The powerful nations created a global council, which they named the United Nations, and tasked it with an advisory role to promote international cooperation and to maintain international order.

In 1945, the United Nations began to teach and educate on how to bring about, by peaceful means, disputes or situations that might lead to a breach of the peace. In 2013, the United Nations signed an agreement in which the UN bank account was being used in what appears to be a money laundering operation. The name of the project that the United Nations designed the scheme to run under was titled 3R, and the UN task-oriented organization that was running the scheme is UNOPS.

If we examine the two cases we illustrated—the Catholic Monarchs and the United Nations—we can see how each source interpreted moral ethics. Each laissez-faire action served a different purpose. The objective of the Catholic Monarchs was to establish a unified and powerful Spain. The colonies established by Christopher Columbus generated the wealth that supported the new unified state of Spain and helped maintain Catholic orthodoxy. In the case of the United Nations, this council possesses the jurisprudence but not the wealth necessary to be a major power.

Let us define power to be the ability of people or groups to achieve their goals despite opposition from others. The United Nations is financed through assessed and voluntary contributions from member states, while task-oriented organizations cover their operational costs with both direct and indirect funding sources. Could the United Nations be resorting to immoral practices that contradict the principles this council was established to promote due to its inability to wield significant power to overrule those opposing the changes it seeks to implement? If this assertion is true, then some people or groups are blocking this organization from achieving its goals.

The United States suggested the idea to create this global council and was the one who served as principal author of the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights. The United States empowered UN officials to exercise laissez-faire authority, allowing them to use the UN to enhance their own interests.

Max Weber argued that the ability to possess power derives from the individual’s ability to control various “social resources.” Could the United States be blocking the United Nations from achieving its goal to control various “social resources”? Thus, UN officials are finding themselves compelled to resort to committing immoral acts to have access to wealth. The main goal is to empower this council so its officials can get their way with others, no matter how much they resist.

The United States is a capitalist country. Only if democratic principles are kept strong in the world could the principal drivers of the economy of this country stay healthy and flourishing. It is in the best interests of the United States that peace and security be maintained in the world. This country cannot be blocking the United Nations from achieving its goals of maintaining peace and security.

If a strong United Nations serves the best interests of the United States, then most. Could the motive of those UN officials for resorting to immoral acts be because their aim is to weaken the power of the United States in the world so they arrive at the power they lack?

Let us check if such a scenario is possible.

The UN staff member who raised concerns about the United Nations signing an agreement with irregularities was an American; this agreement was terminated in 2014 between the UN and the host country that signed the MoU. In 2015, the UN dismissed this American national. He and the UN are now entangled in a legal case that is perhaps one of the most complicated cases that the UN has dealt with until now, because it challenges the principle this council was created to militate to preserve. The United Nations dismissed the supervisor of this UN staff when he refused to take part in the irregularities that the UN was running. He was an American. The judge who dismissed the case on the ground of being time-barred is a former US judge. The counsellor who is now representing the UN on this case at the UN Appeal Tribunal is also an American. This American lawyer had occupied a very senior position in the US government prior to joining the UN.

Here is an excerpt of the argument the former senior US government official is making at the UN Appeal Tribunal to dismiss the appeal:

In his appeal, the Appellant asserts that what he is actually contesting is the “decision to violate his procedural rights to due process as per the legal obligations prescribed on the handling of allegations of misconduct defined in UNOPS’s own Organizational Directive 36, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter.” The Respondent notes the Appellant has simply modified descriptions of his claims on appeal.

We have no way of knowing how any person whose rights were violated when he practiced tolerance and allowed the UN to charge him with being a threat to the best interests of this council modified the description of his claim upon appeal, especially (i) when the UN cancelled the investigation without telling this staff throughout the entire time he was being investigated (close to a year) what the charges against him were or he was asked to comment; (ii) it was revealed during the tribunal that the UN investigators were against the UN administration (who used to be former politicians in their own country before joining the UN) placing this staff under investigation and that the decision to place him under investigation was taken against the advice of the investigators; and most importantly, (iii) as of 1945, the highest aspiration of the common people continues to be to observe the UN charter and the UN human rights, and those principles have not been converted into a variable so the UN lawyer can argue they could be one.

In 1919 Henry Cabot Lodge, the Senate majority leader and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, led the opposition to joining the League of Nations, which Woodrow Wilson was in favor of the United States joining. The Republican concern was that the League would commit the United States to an expensive organization that would reduce the United States’ ability to defend its own interests.

The United States does pay the largest share of the UN’s expenditure. Let us divide the United States’ interests into foreign and domestic. Let us put aside the damages that the US is enduring in foreign relations after the UN mission switched from maintaining international order to becoming a social aid movement.

Could the concerns that Republicans had a century ago about the United States joining an association of nations to maintain peace and security, which they believed would weaken the country’s power in the world, be valid? As this ongoing case is unfolding, instead, the citizens of this country a century later will be dedicated to teaching and educating on the common standard of achievement that their country stands for and represents. The UN is hiring former US legislators, administrators, and arbitrators and paying them with funding financed by this country to argue against what the United States stood for and represented in the world as of 1776. The UN serves as the guardian of democratic institutions and traditions.

It is not possible to establish in an article how the UN weakens the US’s ability to defend its interests because the relationship is a multi-dimensional, non-quantifiable type of problem complex. Let us also add that until 1946, no nation in the history of the world had approved that alien (foreign) people manage public funds or implement social and economic development projects on its behalf while benefiting from diplomatic immunities and privileges, as is the case at the UN. However, based on historical evidence, we know the following: No country paid its arbitrators through the intermediary of an agent without this practice weakening the ability of that nation to defend its interests. Likewise, no nation delegated its duty to control the economy, social freedoms, law enforcement, or political systems to others without this practice resulting in the fall of that nation.