The U.N. has a gaggle of “special rapporteurs” who make political inquiries into whatever the U.N. assigns. Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur for extrajudicial killings, said on July 8 that the U.S. drone strike that killed Iran’s top terrorist, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, was illegal because Washington didn’t provide enough evidence to prove that he was an imminent threat. Her report is evidence that the U.N.’s legitimacy scam is still alive. She, like other U.N. bureaucrats believes that the U.S. can’t take any international action without the U.N.’s permission. In early July, 53 members of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, led by Cuba, declared support for China’s imposition of a new law on Hong Kong that targets pro-democracy political action and is enforced in Hong Kong by Beijing’s own police. On Oct. 18, the U.N. arms embargo on Iran will expire. That embargo prohibits members from selling Iran weapon systems such as ships, missiles and aircraft. Predictably, Russia and China are opposing any extension of the embargo. When the embargo expires, they will “lend” Iran the funds to buy pretty much anything it wants, including, for example, the highly-capable Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/anti-missile system. The only reason we need to remain a U.N. member is the veto we can exercise in the Security Council. Without it, for example, the U.N. Security Council would impose severe economic sanctions on allies such as Israel. American conservatism doesn’t reject cooperation with other nations. But that cooperation functions best outside globalist organizations that claim control over U.S. actions and policies.

Amid the major the events of 2020, the United Nations’ 75th anniversary in October will pass unnoticed by all except a few politicians and a few of the media. It deserves to be ignored. Throughout its history, the U.N. hasn’t functioned as intended by its founders. Instead, it has often functioned as if it were a mental asylum run by its inmates. The United Nations is a diplomatic triumph of hope over experience. The League of Nations, formed in the aftermath of World War I, quickly proved itself incapable of preventing or ending wars. The U.N., like the League, was founded on idealistic notions of maintaining peace based on globalist cooperation. That’s not how the U.N. turned out. The U.N. General Assembly is a forum that gives dictators and despots the attention and appearance of legitimacy they don’t deserve. It’s supported by a highly overpaid bureaucracy and a global media that bashes America and Israel. The U.N. functions in an atmosphere in which corruption - moral, intellectual and financial - flourishes. The U.N. would be improved if it were run by the mafia because the latter holds its employees accountable for job performance. The U.N. Security Council has five permanent veto-holding members (the U.S., the U.K., Russia, China and France). It can pass resolutions that are supposed to have the force and effect of international law. Those resolutions are regularly ignored by our adversaries. World Health Organization, which made itself a propaganda arm of the Chinese regime in the COVID-19 pandemic. Fortunately, the Trump administration has given notice that the U.S. will pull out of the WHO.

The United States needs to take the lead in holding China accountable and countering Mr. Xi’s strategy. First, China’s mishandling of the coronavirus demonstrated once again the importance for the U.S. intelligence community in detecting and sounding the alarm on China’s myriad threats. Second, together with our allies, the Trump administration should shine an even brighter spotlight on China’s human rights violations, economic predation and military aggression. Democracy protests in Hong Kong have been erupting, albeit in a reduced state since the onset of the coronavirus, for a year. Paraphrasing President Kennedy, we are all Hong Kongers now. Third, we need to work collaboratively with other nations to counter and deter Chinese threats. Diversifying the supply chain away from China for strategic goods such as medical equipment and high technology is an excellent place to start. The United States should also counter China’s efforts to use international bodies such as the United Nations and World Health Organization against our interests. Remaining engaged with international institutions and holding them accountable does not mean we are relinquishing our sovereignty, but rather harnessing a powerful force multiplier for achieving our strategic goals. If we withdraw, China will occupy and pollute the vacant space to the detriment of our national security. To borrow a phrase from George Kennan, we still have an opportunity to contain China effectively. But failing to challenge each fresh incursion by Beijing only encourages more Chinese aggression and increases the likelihood that this century, like the last, will be dominated by a cold war.

China denied the coronavirus began in Wuhan and falsely claimed the U.S. was responsible for the virus, while refusing to share research information such as data on the first person to fall ill. The coronavirus pandemic fallout is occurring amidst a rising awareness of China’s full-throttled economic, espionage and propaganda attacks on the United States and its allies. China counterfeits American products; steals trade secrets and intellectual property; and, having hacked into the Office of Personnel Management, uses stolen U.S. government employee data to ruthlessly target anyone who has ever worked in the defense and national security sectors. Just last week, the FBI warned China posed a “significant threat” by deploying hackers to steal U.S. coronavirus vaccine research data. The Trump administration has argued that Chinese telecommunications company Huawei should be banned from involvement in the next generation of national 5G wireless networks outside of China. Washington’s justifiable concern is that China would use “backdoors” in the equipment to spy and compromise communications in the event of cyber conflict with the United States or our allies. China’s aspirations for influence extend well beyond competing with the U.S. as a Pacific power. Using its “One Belt, One Road” program as a cover for debt-trap diplomacy, China has set its sights on undermining the independence of nations in South Asia and across the developing world. In Africa, with an eye toward refurbishing its overseas image and paving the way for economic predation, China stepped up anti-U.S. propaganda by disseminating more coronavirus conspiracy theories.

During his Senate confirmation hearing last week to be the next director of national intelligence, Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe emphasized China is this country’s “greatest threat actor,” a status only confirmed by rising acrimony over Beijing’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. But though tensions are rising in the South China Sea, an actual war between the two powers appears unlikely. But are the United States and China on a path to a new Cold War? The heart of U.S.-China conflict is in the realm of ideas. Democratic principles of liberty and pluralism are antithetical to China’s autocratic Communist state and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s expanding cult of personality. Through its ubiquitous state surveillance and “Great Firewall” on online dissent, China seeks to deny its citizens freedom of expression and access to the outside world. Not known for its accuracy, objectivity or independence, Chinese media are subject to constant review by the Communist Party’s Propaganda Department. Reaching new heights of servility under Mr. Xi, state-controlled press outlets exist to preserve the regime’s power in China, repress freedom of expression and whitewash China’s increasingly discredited global reput. Few things scare Mr. Xi more than the democratic ideals enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights - their application in China would mean that the party was living on borrowed time. Meanwhile, the coronavirus has exposed the fault lines between democratic nations and China. Deliberately concealing the outbreak and severity of the coronavirus outbreak, China continues to censor criticism and pressure other nations to adhere to its outlandish propaganda claims.

We now know that students learn in many different ways and at different rates, depending on the subject matter. Technology enables each student to learn in a variety of formats at a rate that best suits his or her mental and physical abilities. This will no longer require millions of classrooms designed to seat 30 students ? because each student has their own learning machines and communication devices, enabling them to learn most everywhere. This process is now well underway. Think of the cost savings alone in physical plant and education bureaucracy. The virus crisis is forcing a speed up in change out of pure necessity. The medical sciences are now being pushed ever harder to innovate ? whether it is the speed at which vaccines can be created or evaluating and treating patients with various forms of telemedicine without the costly and, also at times dangerous, need for patient face-to-face contacts with medical providers. Every innovation, whether the steam engine, mechanical reaper, microchip, or the Internet, always spawns many more new jobs than it destroys because of the additional wealth created. These new jobs, for the most part, cannot be seen, because they are yet to be invented. Go through a list of want ads for employment and count the number of job types that did not exist a half century ago ? you will be amazed. Forcing people to stay at home, away from their traditional jobs, is painful and destructive ? but will also serve as a catalyst for a new wave of innovation. COVID-19, while causing great misery, has also once again served to enlighten people as to the true nature of communists, who could have stopped it, and is becoming a global spur to constructive innovation.

For decades, manufacturing has become more and more automated with fewer and fewer workers at the plant where the product is produced. Picture a world where future iPhones are designed in Silicon Valley with engineers working in a fully communicative fashion from their homes anyplace in the world. The components would then be produced in automated factories in many locations and their outputs would be automatically sent to various locations for final and totally automated assembly and then shipped by self-driving vehicles so the first time a human hand touches the phone is when the customer opens the package in her home. This is not a world decades off, but only a few years away. When Cyrus McCormick (1809-1884) invented the mechanical reaper in 1831, there was fear that millions of farmers would lose their jobs (at the time something like 80 percent of the population worked on farms). But as farm automation grew and the price of crops continued to fall in real terms, as they are still doing, those who were displaced obtained, for the most part, better jobs in the new industrial economy. This process continues to the present, where a single farmer, using automated equipment, genetically improved seeds, and precision fertilizer, can operate a very large farm controlled by computers in his home and produce enough food to support thousands of families. The educational establishment has been resisting technology for eons - and so like Socrates two and half thousand years ago, there is a teacher or professor who stands in front of a few students attempting to impart knowledge.

The Chinese Communist Party virus (aka COVID-19) is forcing people to be innovative ― and many will be constructively creative. From the rise of the Internet, workers and consumers are becoming increasingly untethered from a physical location to work or shop. This trend is now in forced acceleration. Each day, more and more employers and employees are realizing that they can get by perfectly well without everyone being in the same physical workplace for the entire day or week, or even month. Go through a mental exercise where you try to identify what jobs absolutely depend on a person in a specific physical location. It is relatively easy to understand how most office workers can shift to working at home, given the Internet and all of the related communication tools like “Zoom.” A world of artificial intelligence and robots is no longer science fiction. The pilot of an airliner does not have to be in the plane ― she can be home in her pajamas. The USAF has been operating drones from airbases in Nevada to do precision weapons’ strikes in the Middle East for more than a decade. The Navy is experimenting with crewless ships, and the owners of oil-tankers and container ships are paying close attention. The world’s second-biggest retailer (Amazon) has few stores ― and its warehouses and delivery services are increasingly automated. Companies with physical stores are increasingly automated with fewer workers per customer served. Companies like FedEx or UPS are moving toward a world of crewless aircraft and driverless delivery vehicles. The control of these services has been largely done in offices ― but there is no reason why they could not be done through a coordinated workforce from home.

“Public choice theory” in economics, in part, explains the way self-interest of those in government and other institutions motivates them to avoid solving problems in order to keep their jobs and perks. Now, a new series of studies by researchers at Harvard and other universities shows “that as the prevalence of a problem is reduced, humans are naturally inclined to redefine the problem itself.” Public choice economists have long understood that there is a tendency to endlessly move the goal posts in order to avoid “solving” a problem. For instance, according to government statistics, very little progress has been made in the “fight” against poverty in that the number of poor as a percentage of the population has changed little in the last four decades despite the fact that the amount spent on anti-poverty programs has grown far faster than the rate of inflation or population growth. The lack of “progress” is largely a result of endless redefinitions of what poverty is. The average U.S. “poor” family now has a large flat-screen color TV, air-conditioned living quarters and a dishwasher. Middle-class families did not have such luxuries 50 years ago. There are hundreds of thousands employed in the anti-poverty industry. If the problem of “poverty” were solved, there would be no need for most of these people; hence, the enormous incentive to redefine the problem. Public choice economists recognize that most people have some concern for others, but their main motive is self-interest. Why does the government spend roughly twice as much money per poor person on anti-poverty programs instead of just granting each poor person the amount of money the government says he or she needs to no longer be poor?

For example, the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently green-lighted an investigation into war crimes accusations leveled against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. isn’t even a party to the ICC. The court has zero jurisdiction over America. “This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters. Faced with such brazen disregard for U.S. sovereignty, merely ignoring the ICC is insufficient. It is time for the U.S. to go the offensive. If the U.S. does not pay attention and fight back, the ICC will not be the last international organization that our foes weaponized to use against us. China’s behavior in this regard has become quite egregious. Beijing is pressing numerous international organizations to hire thousands of Chinese citizens. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants to riddle organizations with operatives loyal to the party. There is no end to the mischief that the CCP can accomplish by hijacking international organizations. Recently, it used its influence in the World Health Organization not only to hide China’s mismanagement of the response to the coronavirus, but to browbeat international officials into abetting the cover-up. China also tried to press its candidate as the head of World Intellectual Property Organization ? while being the world’s leader in stealing intellectual property. Shrewd and powerful offensives targeted on key international organizations now would both mark U.S. global leadership for a second century and tip the great power competition more in our favor.