top of page


Handbook of International Diplomacy―The Authoritarian Edition: Trouble in the UN

When faced with a concerted effort by an international alliance of your enemies to drag you to court (most likely the International Criminal Court), through the UN, for alleged human rights violations and general misbehavior, like the one currently waged against North Korea, there are some essential steps one should take.


First remember that the UN is more of an international chat forum and shouting match arena rather than a launch pad for praxis. You should therefore immediately lobby, if you haven't already, for members who are also wary or victims of similar "righteous" initiatives to back you up and oppose any resolution. In this way, coming from a party other than you, the furious denials of the accusations will have more gravitas, no matter if the self-serving motivation behind them is pretty transparent, it is all about the sound bites. Your best defense is, as we have mentioned in numerous contexts in this handbook, to attack; in cases like this by accusing your detractors of falsifying information, meddling in your internal affairs and plotting to overthrow your legitimate government. For more panache don't forget to draft a competing amendment to the resolution and have an friendly member circulate it. If that member has also been accused of collusion over some of some case(s) brought against you in the past, even better; it will be more galvanized. Above all, it is essential to leverage the support of at least one veto-wielding Security Council member to ensure the defeat of any proposal, which is fairly easy considering the geostrategic tensions between its permanent members.


At the end of the day though, nothing is more effective like some old fashion threat of warmongering. So proceed to insinuate, in a most nonchalant, another-day-at-the-office way, the possibility of nuclear annihilation though the scheduling of some nuclear tests or other.


bottom of page