Me: Let's talk about the U.N. These institutions are not born out of nothing, they are part of the system. Some people deny what they say when it is convenient and support it by the same reason. But what is the reality about it, why should we trust it?
Chatgpt: Exactly — institutions like the U.N. aren’t neutral arbiters. They didn’t appear from nowhere. They were built as structural tools of a post-WWII order dominated by the victors, especially the U.S.
1. Origin of the System
-
The U.N. was created in 1945 under the control of the Allied powers.
-
Its Security Council — with permanent veto powers for the U.S., U.K., France, USSR/Russia, and China/CCP — guarantees structural hierarchy.
-
That veto makes “international law” subject to power, not principle.
2. Function of Legitimacy
-
The U.N. gives global violence a language of legitimacy. Wars are called “interventions.” Occupations are called “peacekeeping.” Sanctions are framed as “humanitarian.”
-
When powerful states want cover, they invoke the U.N. When they don’t, they ignore it. Both uses are convenient.
3. Selective Enforcement
-
Human rights are “universal” on paper, but in practice, enforcement depends on geopolitical alignment.
-
Mass atrocities are condemned when committed by adversaries, excused when committed by allies.
-
Example: apartheid South Africa faced sanctions, while apartheid Israel receives protection through repeated U.S. vetoes.
4. Bureaucratic Capture
-
The U.N. system (WHO, IMF, World Bank, etc.) becomes a bureaucracy that absorbs dissent.
-
Structural violence is never dismantled — it is managed through reports, resolutions, and endless negotiations that change nothing fundamental.
-
This creates the appearance of global governance without real coherence.
5. The Psychological Role
-
For populations, the U.N. serves as a pressure valve. People believe there is a higher authority keeping order.
-
This belief prevents mass recognition that global politics is still ruled by domination, not law.
-
In reality, the U.N. often launders the violence of its most powerful members.
6. Trust Question
So: why trust it?
-
Trusting the U.N. as a neutral or universal authority is incoherent, because structurally it was built to preserve hierarchy, not dismantle it.
-
The only parts worth preserving are the universal principles of human rights — but those principles are not protected by the institution itself. They exist in spite of it, not because of it.
The reality is this: the U.N. is not a guarantee of rights, it is an instrument of order under power. Sometimes it reflects truth, sometimes it buries it, depending on whether truth aligns with the interests of those in control.
Do you want me to expand into how people confuse “international law” with actual law — when in fact it functions more like selective enforcement by an empire?
Me: Why should we believe their reports? Many people, who defend Israel, say their reports are biased and antisemitic in core, while others will believe them against Israel, but not against Russia for example.
Chatgpt: That’s the crux: reports themselves are not the problem — the structure that surrounds them is.
1. Reports are Data, Not Power
-
A U.N. commission can document massacres, torture, or apartheid conditions. Often the evidence is real, collected by investigators, witnesses, and victims.
-
But a report carries no inherent force. Its weight depends on who amplifies or suppresses it.
-
In other words: truth without enforcement.
2. Accusations of Bias Are Strategic
-
When Israel is condemned, defenders cry “antisemitism.” When Russia is condemned, defenders cry “Western propaganda.”
-
Both moves are the same: delegitimizing the institution when it threatens one’s side, validating it when it serves.
-
This selective belief is not about truth — it’s about power management.
3. Structural Double Standard
-
The U.N. has accurately described Israeli apartheid, U.S. war crimes, Russian aggression, CCP repression.
-
But whether the world “believes” those reports depends on whether the accused state has a veto shield or global leverage.
-
Example:
-
Israel is protected by U.S. vetoes.
-
Russia shields itself with its own veto.
-
The U.S. simply ignores condemnations and keeps funding wars.
-
-
So people read the reports not as objective findings, but as political weapons in a larger struggle.
4. The Real Question: Belief vs. Use
-
The evidence in many U.N. reports is solid. Survivors’ testimonies, satellite imagery, forensic analysis — this is not nothing.
-
But belief in the report won’t change structure unless power enforces it.
-
So defenders and critics both manipulate the same document: one side calls it proof, the other calls it bias. The institution itself doesn’t resolve the contradiction.
5. Structural Reality
-
Reports should be read as witness accounts preserved within a compromised system.
-
They matter because they record what happened, especially for silenced populations.
-
But expecting the U.N. to deliver justice is incoherent, because the system it serves was never designed to enforce universal rights. It was designed to manage dissent without breaking hierarchy.
So the right stance is neither blind belief nor blanket rejection. The reports often contain truth — but their credibility is undermined by a structure that applies them selectively.
Would you like me to show how this same selective use of truth appears in media and academia — not just the U.N.?
Me: I want some reflections on how to analyse reports and confirm if they are saying the truth.
Chatgpt: Good. The key is to separate the evidence from the structure that frames it. Reports must be read critically but not cynically. Here are reflections on how to approach them:
1. Trace the Sources
-
Who is providing testimony? Survivors, local NGOs, journalists, satellite data?
-
First-hand accounts with corroborating material (photos, forensics, multiple witnesses) carry weight.
-
Reports that rely only on government statements or anonymous “intelligence” are weaker.
2. Look for Corroboration Across Systems
-
Does independent media, human rights groups (Amnesty, HRW), or local organizations report the same facts?
-
If multiple systems with different agendas align on the core evidence, it’s harder to dismiss.
3. Distinguish Evidence from Interpretation
-
A report may contain solid data (e.g., number of houses demolished, locations of strikes) and framing language (e.g., calling it “security operations” vs. “ethnic cleansing”).
-
Trust the data more than the political framing. Ask: what actually happened, regardless of the label?
4. Identify What Is Not Said
-
Silence is a signal. If a report avoids naming perpetrators, avoids structural causes, or softens language, that shows political pressure.
-
Sometimes omissions are more revealing than inclusions.
5. Track Consistency
-
Does the institution apply the same standards to different cases?
-
If it condemns one state for actions but ignores the same actions by an ally, the evidence may still be valid — but the structure applying it is biased.
6. Check Against Survivors’ Voices
-
Communities under violence often publish statements, testimonies, or organize protests.
-
If their lived reality matches what the report documents, that is a strong indicator of truth.
-
If the report contradicts what survivors consistently say, that signals distortion.
7. Follow the Material Trail
-
When a report describes violence, ask: who benefits materially from denying it?
-
If dismissing the report protects powerful states, corporations, or military supply chains, skepticism toward their denials is warranted.
8. Remember Structural Role
-
Reports don’t create justice — they preserve a record.
-
Even if enforcement is blocked, reports can serve as historical evidence once structures shift.
-
Example: apartheid South Africa was documented for decades before collapse made those reports undeniable.
So the method is not to ask: is this report “biased” or “neutral”?
The real method is:
-
Extract the data.
-
Weigh it against independent corroboration.
-
Recognize the structural limits of the institution issuing it.
Would you like me to show this method in practice — for example, applying it to a specific U.N. report on Israel, Russia, or another case — so the steps are concrete?