“That thing they call the UN*.”

Christian Morisot
In a book entitled “From the White Kepi to the Blue Helmet,” one of our comrades, a Legion officer, explains what prompted him to take early retirement: he couldn't accept the missions assigned to the Legion for the benefit of the UN.
Armed with this irrevocable decision, our friend took to the sea and sails the oceans, carried by the wind to a place he finds more acceptable.

Since then, after meeting him several times, I've done some research on the UN, the object of his resentment.

In reality, the United Nations is a new way of practicing the world's oldest trick: the politics of alliances, the politics of blocs. This is called idealism, cloaked in a veneer of apparent goodwill, humanism, and a supposed commitment to defending human rights, which makes this policy particularly odious.

I observe a constant contradiction between the aspirations of the people and what becomes of them when they are raised at the United Nations. Everything becomes discourse, everything becomes words: “Hunger and suffering become rhetoric, and one must possess a dose of cynicism and acrobatics without being deeply disgusted,” as Romain Gary said.

In fact, the UN is quick to intervene where it risks little; the idea of ​​intervening today in a country struggling against Islamist extremists doesn't seem to have occurred to it. Nothing has changed. Back then, the idea of ​​intervening in Hungary at the time of the Budapest uprising also didn't seem to have crossed its mind, and I'm not even mentioning its position regarding countries possessing nuclear weapons… The conclusion of all this is that we are facing a problem of pure, traditional power, exercised with total cynicism, which is, moreover, recognized and accepted by those involved.

External colonialism is dead, the old imperialist colonialism has disappeared. But a country that gains independence liberates itself from colonialism by establishing a kind of exploitation of its people by those who have taken control of its destiny, and their methods are just as, if not more, ruthless than those of the former colonialists.

The tragedy of the UN is that it has created in people's minds, in their hopes and in their intellect, the idea of ​​a United Nations organization hovering above nations and capable, like some kind of machine, of solving the world's problems.

The UN itself does not exist.
It is the nationalists, the nations, the countries that continue their power politics, their traditional alliances and intrigues.

I am beginning to understand the reason for my friend's decision.