✨🇺🇳🩵United Nations musings🩵🇺🇳✨

==================

Okay, I'm tired of arguing with people about whether or not the UN is useless, so I decided to just make this sideblog where I post about the UN and hopefully try convincing people that it's actually not as bad as people make it out to be

So welcome to the United Nations Musings - I'm your hostess, the Devout UN Lady, and I hope you enjoy your time here :3

What is the UN?

The United Nations (UN) is an organization between countries established on 24 October 1945 to promote international cooperation. It was founded to replace the League of Nations following World War II and to prevent another conflict. When it was founded, the UN had 51 members. Now there are 193. Most nations are members of the UN and send diplomats to the headquarters to hold meetings and make decisions about global issues. I kind of talk more about what it is in my post "The United Nations: An Introduction" lol

Who is the Devout UN Lady?

Oh, that's me! Yes, I am the Devout UN Lady, but everyone mostly calls me "Kitsune" in casual conversation. For further information about me, I would recommend you check out the introductory post on my main - But basically, I'm an autistic girl from the US who's loved the UN ever since she was 5, and who also wants to help people learn more about it. In a sense, you could consider me to be to any and all UN topics what Codename Sailor Earth (the hostess of Moon Sisters!) is to any and all Sailor Moon topics. I know I can't exactly change your mind, but I just want to help you guys stay informed, since there is, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation and disinformation about the UN going around online.

How do I navigate this blog?

Excellent question! Well, you navigate this blog just like you would any other Tumblr blog, but since this is a database blog, there are special tags that I'm going to use for this blog:

United Nations musings - for any post I make that isn't reblogging other posts (The general tag, basically)

UN news - When I reblog or post news sources for the UN itself

UN Reblogs - When I reblog basically anything about the UN

The United Nations learning center - For when I talk about UN history or when I debunk any false information that could be going around (because I just know I'll have to do that at some point)

The Devout UN Lady has spoken - When I make an announcement about the blog or any UN-related causes or entities

Meme Mondays - For UN memes that I either find online or make myself

The Devout UN Lady is not amused - For basically every rant I'll make regarding the UN, whether that be anything that disrespects it without giving it proper criticism (e.g. Fox News) or even anything that happens within the UN itself (because believe it or not, even the UN isn't perfect)

Memorials and Tributes - For honoring those who died for the UN (Like Dag Hammarskjöld, the second Secretary-General of the UN, who died on a peace mission to negotiate a cease-fire in the Congo)

Miscellaneous - Anything that is related to the UN but isn't necessarily information? Yeah, it's going here too

=================

DISCLAIMER!

This blog is for Tumblr users 16 and older! That is because not only are political matters and heavy topics like war or terrorism discussed here, but I also swear a lot and I also use adult humor in some posts (like memes I might post on Meme Mondays). Additionally, you cannot interact with this blog if you're only going to spam hate comments with no real nuance or if you're going to just advertise in the comments. Ok? Good.

I hope you enjoy your time here and I hope you learn something useful while you're on this blog :3

And also, if you want to play your part in helping the UN achieve its goals, please donate to any of their major causes, linked below the cut:

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

=================

Okay, so... I've been listening to anthems for both countries and organizations lately (because believe it or not, I'm also a music nerd lol), and in a lot of the playlists I've seen on YouTube, a song titled "Hymn of the United Nations" is often listed as the anthem of the UN, even though the UN has stated that they don't have an official anthem.

Now, you might be wondering: "Devout UN Lady, just what the hell is the 'Hymn of the United Nations'?", and I wouldn't blame you one bit if you are wondering that - Because that was the same question I've been asking myself since I was 12.

And today I've decided to actually talk about what this "hymn" is, and why it doesn't actually work as the anthem of the UN (and stick around until the end, because I actually have a better idea of what the UN anthem should be).

So first off, the main question: What is the "Hymn of the United Nations"?

Well, simply put, the Hymn of the United Nations is a quote-unquote "anthem" (or so it's called online) composed to mark the 26th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. On the request of then United Nations Secretary-General U Thant, Hymn to the United Nations was performed on the occasion of its 26th anniversary, on 24 October 1971, by Pau Casals, the lyrics to which were penned by the poet W. H. Auden.

I won't post the lyrics here because it would make this post too long, but basically the lyrics describe peace and how words can lie with lots of grandiose philosophical metaphors and other fancy bullshit that you'd have to be particularly educated in philosophy to understand like that - The finished work, scored for chorus and orchestra, takes approximately seven minutes to perform (and I don't want you to just take my word on it at face-value; You should search up the lyrics so you see what I'm talking about).

Now, as amazing as that sounds, I think it's time I now did what I must do as the Devout UN Lady: Completely tear it apart because it doesn't do the organization that it claims to represent justice.

First of all, the lyrics - The hymn is in English, which, while English is one of the six official languages of the UN, yes, it's also not universal, as not everyone speaks English. If the UN really wanted this to be their anthem, then it would've had to have been translated into the other five official languages (Spanish, French, Chinese, Arabic and Russian). Additionally, like I said before, the lyrics describe peace and how words can lie with lots of grandiose philosophical metaphors and other fancy bullshit that you'd have to be particularly educated in philosophy to truly understand like that, so that only further adds to the inaccessibility of the song.

Secondly, the availability of it: It was only performed once, for the 26th anniversary of the UN, and it was almost never performed again since. Hell, at least 90% of people don't even know it exists because of this, and you'd be more likely to get a scam ad than ever find a good recording of it on YouTube or any more sketchier websites online.

Thirdly and most importantly, the memorability of it: As a music nerd like I stated previously, I've actually had trouble memorizing the melody of the hymn past the lines "so we may sing / elated, optative", and the rest of it just came off as white noise to me and I couldn't memorize it even if I tried. And I just know I can't be the only musician to have struggled learning this, if I'm not the only person still alive to know it exists.

So, the Hymn of the United Nations, as much as anthem playlists want to make us believe it is a good official anthem, actually doesn't work as an anthem for the UN when you really consider the accessibility and musical limitations of it.

Now, at this point you might be wondering: "Devout UN Lady, if the 'Hymn of the United Nations' doesn't work as an anthem of the UN, then what does?".

Well, you might argue that it actually works better without an anthem, and I would usually agree, but for this scenario, there is one song that comes to mind when I'm posed with the question of what would work as an anthem of the UN - A song that has been adapted thousands of times ever since it was recovered from being forgotten in the 1960s, even centuries after it was originally written somewhere in the late 1600s or early 1700s.

I am, of course, talking about none other than Pachelbel's Canon in D.

Unlike the Hymn of the United Nations, "Canon in D" has no words, meaning that it transcends language barriers and everyone can understand it at the same time. It is also a masterclass in the usage of the Canon structure, overlaying melodies on top of each other to create something beautiful that somehow explains the concept of peace without words, with the melodies never clashing even once in the entire piece.

Sounds very familiar, right?

Additionally, "Canon in D" is very memorable and it's easy to memorize if you're starting out in music, with a simple 8-chord pattern (I – V – vi – iii – IV – I – IV – V) that everything else is laid upon. It has also been adapted and reimagined time and time again, to the point where every nation recognizes it (hell, I even remember, as a child, thinking of the Canon as the perfect combination of every song to ever exist, just as the UN is the perfect combination of every culture and nationality to ever exist).

Now, Pachelbel died in 1706, so the Canon in D had long been in the public domain by the time the UN was formed in 1945, and if the UN should one day adopt an official anthem, then I don't see any other reason why they wouldn't adopt "Canon in D" as their anthem, just as the European Union has Beethoven's Ode to Joy, another widely renowned classical piece, as their anthem.

So there we have it - People keep assuming "Hymn of the United Nations" is the UN's anthem (which... It's not, the UN has stated that they don't have an official anthem), "Hymn of the United Nations" wouldn't actually work as an anthem for the UN, and then Pachelbel's "Canon in D" is what would work as an anthem of the UN, should they adopt a real anthem.

And if you think "Hymn of the United Nations" is actually a good UN anthem even after everything I just said, that's great - But I just needed to point all this stuff out, because for an organization representing 193 member states and six official languages, an anthem that's only in one language and rarely heard is a symbol that doesn't unite.

(P.S.: Canon in D also has four parts - The bassline and the three melodies, and you know what else famously had four parts (lines) as symbols on its flag before it became a real organization...? Okay, I need to stop before I start sounding like a sleep-deprived history buff, but it's just really interesting to think about-)

🇺🇳

=============

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

=================

When I was a kid in the 2010s, I was a huge fan of Cartoon Network. I loved many of the shows, but my biggest favorite was Teen Titans Go, a 2013 reimagining of the original, 2003 Teen Titans series.

Now, I loved the show so much that you would often find me watching it in my parents' bedroom, but there was one part of the show that I absolutely hated, and that was Robin, the leader.

He was a tyrannical leader, a fearmongerer, a monster - But he was also a bigot, too, as demonstrated in the episodes "Hot Salad Water" and "The Metric System vs. Freedom", where Robin was obstinately against the idea of America being anything other than "free" and "independent".

And I was recently rewatching the show, and, because I am the Devout UN Lady, I began to realize something.

If Robin were a real person, he would absolutely be cooked.

Here's why.

So first, let's address the elephant in the room: Robin has violated not one, but three Geneva Conventions, which are a series of international treaties that establish the core rules of conduct for armed conflict and seek to limit the brutality of war.

What are the specific Geneva Conventions that Robin has violated? Well, let's see.

I. Treatment of Prisoners of War: The Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war from "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture." In the episode "The Date", Robin kidnapped Speedy and held him against his will. By capturing Speedy (who's a fellow hero, so not even an enemy combatant) and holding him hostage, Robin commits a "grave breach" of Article 130 of the Third Geneva Convention. II. Protection of Civilians: The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians during wartime. While TTG is notoriously absurdist, Robin routinely endangers the entire city of Jump City. In the episode "I Am Chair," the Wiki notes that the episode is notable for depicting global extinction. Robin's actions directly lead to the death of millions. Even if the episode is played for dark comedy, the criminal negligence required to cause the extinction of the human race is the ultimate violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention's protections for civilians. III. Common Article 3 (all the Conventions, basically): Common Article 3 is the same in all four Geneva Conventions. It applies to conflicts "not of an international character" and prohibits cruel treatment and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". This is Robin's specialty. He constantly beats his teammates with his staff. He creates a totalitarian "Rules of Robin" book to control them. Multiple sources describe him as a "narcissist, control freak, and total jerk" who enjoys "beating up villains, even if they're not doing anything at that time" and notes he "comes off as a psychopath rather than a hero". This constant psychological and physical abuse of his own friends is a textbook violation of Common Article 3.

Now, this is where the UN comes in, because while the Conventions were drafted under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) rather than the UN, the UN and its member states are universally committed to enforcing and applying their principles, as the UN actively champions the principles of the Geneva Conventions. Through bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN works to hold states and individuals accountable for war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.

"But wait," you may be wondering, "How exactly does the UN handle this sort of stuff?"

This is where I introduce to you a little thing called "sanctions".

UN sanctions are targeted, non-military measures imposed by the Security Council against specific individuals to maintain or restore international peace, counter terrorism, or promote nuclear non-proliferation. They range from comprehensive economic blockades (rarely used today) to targeted measures like arms embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes, and commodity restrictions. Think of it like a parent scolding their child for doing something bad - "If you keep misbehaving, I'm taking away your phone privileges" (or, in this case, "I'm taking away your travel privileges").

Now, because Robin, as we've established previously, has violated three different Geneva Conventions (the Geneva Conventions themselves you could say being like the spiritual ancestor to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), he would ABSOLUTELY be subject to multiple UN sanctions as, unlike sweeping economic embargoes, UN sanctions are specifically designed to penalize individuals involved in activities like terrorism, conflict, or human rights violations, thereby minimizing unintended suffering for the general population.

The UN actually works with Interpol - the International Criminal Police Organization - to issue these special notices, which alert global police forces to individuals who are subject to travel restrictions or asset freezing. Additionally, member states are obligated to implement these measures; The country that Robin has targeted the most outside of the US is the United Kingdom, or UK, and that especially poses a risk for Robin because the UK is one of the Permanent 5 Security Council members at the UN.

Now, I'm very aware that Robin is a cartoon character, but the way he acts is unfortunately very consistent with the behavior of other world leaders and war criminals, whether historical or present-day. The examples I have are those who have the Interpol-UN notice, such as those associated with Al-Qaeda, ISIL, or even the government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

And you know what? It's no wonder why I hated Robin so much when I was younger - I knew he was an ACTUAL FUCKNUT OF A HUMAN BEING, but I just didn't have the words for why until now.

And if you actually side with Robin... Go away, you probably don't deserve a say in anything since you're sympathetic with the violation of human rights.

Now I just gotta bolt before the show inevitably does an episode on me because I did a real-world analysis on Robin - But before I go, don't be like Robin, please.

🇺🇳

==================

+ versions w/o the UN Musings logo under cut

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

=====================

So I've been reading snippets of the lore of the video game series Fallout lately (because that's what normal people do, right? 😂) and I kept coming back to the detail that, in the Fallout timeline, the United Nations completely disbanded on July 26, 2052, and then had its headquarters turned into a toy store, and then - just the DAY BEFORE THE UN'S 132ND FUCKING ANNIVERSARY - had it bombed.

And it had me wondering something - What would happen if the UN actually disbanded like it did in Fallout?

So I did some research... And the short answer? We'd be fucked. Just, straight up, fucked. Fucked from the north pole all the way down to Antarctica.

Let me explain.

So first of all, if the UN disbanded, global security and law would plunge into total chaos. As an example, if the UN were to disband, the UN provides a neutral table for dialogue. Without it, diplomatic disputes between rival powers could escalate into direct conflicts much faster, particularly for smaller countries that would lose their platform for global influence.

Additionally, peacekeeping missions in volatile regions like the Middle East and Africa would end overnight. Ceasefires could break down, reigniting civil wars and leaving millions of vulnerable civilians unprotected. The enforcement of global standards regarding human rights, war crimes, and genocide would also fall entirely on individual state powers rather than an international framework.

But global security and law isn't the only thing that would fall to shit, because humanitarian aid and health crises would also go for a toss. For example, more than 100 million refugees and displaced persons globally rely on the UN (such as the UNHCR) for food, shelter, and security. Their collapse would leave these populations stranded, likely sparking massive, uncontrolled migration toward Europe and the Global North.

Adding a whole factory's worth of salt to the open wound, the dissolution of the World Health Organization (WHO) would devastate low-income countries that rely on it to vet safe vaccines and medicines. Vital global disease tracking and pandemic preparedness systems would be lost, leaving the world completely vulnerable to new viral outbreaks.

And not to mention, specialized agencies like the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) set the standards for international flights and shipping. Without them, navigating across borders would become a logistical nightmare, if not impossible.

And this is PRECISELY why I have a problem with people like Donald Trump, who think the UN is useless and want it fucking DEAD. Because the UN - as slow and imperfect as it is - is actually doing more good to the world than any other organization ever has, in ANY FUCKING TIME PERIOD, and anyone who thinks it should disband even though it's trying is either stupid, or they WANT this world to plunge into utter chaos.

Now, I know what people reading this might be thinking: "Devout UN Lady, please! It's just a hypothetical! Besides, the UN doesn't even do much anyway!", BUT MAYBE THAT'S THE IDEA, GODDAMNIT! It's like the old saying goes, "sometimes, less is more", and maybe in certain situations, less is more with the UN! BUT NO, PEOPLE LIKE TRUMP WANT IT DEAD BECAUSE "they're not doing it fast enough"! If you want the UN to actually DO SHIT, THEN AT LEAST LEARN TO BE PATIENT BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO MAKE BRAINDEAD ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT, ASSHOLE.

And no, I'm not sorry for crashing out, because you simply have to understand that the UN means a LOT more than what people give it credit for, and the disbanding of the UN would actually cause more harm than good.

And I know some of you guys don't like hearing this, but sometimes, less is more, people. Less is fucking more.

🇺🇳

===============

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

=============

Imagine you're at a thrift store. It's not as big as a regular store, but it's also not as small as a farmer's market or yard sale, either; It just... Is.

You're just wandering around, seeing what their selection is, not really paying attention to their products. But then you see it - A popular product you may have been wanting since it went viral, like, let's say, a Stanley Cup.

You can't believe your eyes! They're selling the product you want for cheap at this store? Let's go!... But then you actually take a closer look at the pricing, and it's actually not cheap, and it's actually egregiously more expensive than the original product.

Additionally, it's more chipped and it doesn't even have the logo that the official product has. And this is when you realize: this is a fake.

Well... That's kind of what's going on here, and I was blissfully unaware of it (thankfully, until people started talking about it on various news outlets-).

So in case you aren't in the know, in January of this year in 2026, US President Donald Trump founded a new "international organization" (I use that term VERY LOOSELY) that, quote, "is dedicated to achieving lasting peace and reconstruction in Gaza". This new organization is called the Board of Peace, or BoP, and it was conceived to implement a US-brokered 20-point ceasefire framework in the Israel-Hamas war, its broader charter grants it the global authority to address international conflicts.

Now, because I am the Devout UN Lady, I had to do some more research on it, and I found out that it's actually so much worse than I first thought.

There are many reasons why the Board of Peace is actually not a good organization, but for simplicity's sake, I'll only talk about the three main ones.

First of all, the entry fee: If you're a world leader and you want to join the Board of Peace, you have to pay - and I'm not making this up - 1 billion USD to Trump.

Let me repeat that: If you want to join the Board of Peace, you have to pay Trump 1 billion dollars for permanent membership. There are many things wrong with this in itself, but I'll just address the elephant in the room: NOT EVERY WORLD LEADER HAS WHATEVER THEIR EQUIVALENT TO 1 BILLION DOLLARS IS. Seriously, not everyone is a billionaire like Trump is, and so making the entry fee 1 billion dollars is absolutely absurd.

Not to mention, it's also very inconsiderate for an organization that wants to be "international" to do this, because not every country uses the same currency (unless the leaders that were stupid enough to have their countries join this hellhole for any reason had the time to convert whatever money they had into what it would be in USD, which... Is honestly smarter than anything Trump has ever done).

Second of all: The Board of Peace's charter states, quote, "Donald J. Trump shall serve as inaugural Chairman of the Board of Peace, and he shall separately serve as inaugural representative of the United States of America, subject only to the limitations of applicable United States law," and it also states, quote, "The Chairman shall have exclusive authority to create, modify, or dissolve subsidiary entities as necessary or appropriate to fulfill the Board of Peace's mission."

Or, in simple terms: Trump is the Chairman for life and the charter says he can do whatever the hell he wants with the BoP.

There are many things wrong with this, because 1) if we've learned nothing about Trump from his two terms as president, he's a selfish and power-hungry bigot who only cares about money and himself, 2) "Chairman for life with the freedom to do whatever the hell he wants" is basically just a more verbose way of saying "dictator", and 3) It isn't fair for one person to retain all the power, as opposed to the United Nations (and even its predecessor, the League of Nations) and how it elects a Secretary-General every few years, as voted for by member states, and also has the candidates do public dialogues to share their visions as the future Secretary-General.

And thirdly - and the reason that makes me the most angry about the very idea of the Board of Peace: The only reason Trump created this gold-plated trash bag is because he doesn't see the UN as "meaningful" or "important" and wants to replace it.

Yes, that's right - Trump, who we've already established is a bigot who only cares about money and himself, has publicly stated himself that the Board of Peace could eventually look over or outright replace the United Nations.

DO YOU KNOW HOW ABSOLUTELY IGNORANT AND OBNOXIOUS THAT IS?

The UN CONSTANTLY bends over backwards to maintain world peace and attempt to solve international problems like poverty, world hunger, climate change and other problems that happen worldwide, and yet Trump - this ungrateful bigot who shouldn't even be in politics in the first place - STILL THINKS THE UN IS FUCKING USELESS AND WANTS TO REPLACE IT?

WHAT THE ABSOLUTE FUCK?!

In case you couldn't tell, this post is making me angry to type, because WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN YOU WANT TO REPLACE THE UN WITH YOUR OWN GOLD-PLATED DUMPSTER FIRE OF AN ORGANIZATION, DONALD?

So in short: the Board of Peace is a bootleg UN, its charter grants Trump absolute power over it, and it wants to replace the UN "the same way the UN replaced the League of Nations", when that's not how the replacement happened at all back in 1945.

And no joke, the only silver lining - if you can even call it that - I can find here is that this only gives us another reason to mock Trump and the people who genuinely like him.

And to anyone reading this: Please, for the love of all that is good, support the REAL UN, and don't support the BoP, because the BoP is an inferior piece of garbage compared to the masterpiece that is the UN, and Trump should be utterly ashamed of himself.

🇺🇳

===========

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

============

Okay, so in case you aren't already in the know, the Secretary-General (UNSG or UNSECGEN) is the chief administrator of the United Nations who oversees the United Nations Secretariat, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it also represents all 193 nations on the global stage.

Now, as of April 2026, António Guterres is the current (ninth) Secretary-General of the United Nations, having taken office on January 1, 2017. However, his second term will expire on December 31, 2026, and the selection process for the next leader began in late 2025/early 2026.

So now you might be wondering, "Devout UN Lady, who should I vote for or at least root for to win?" And I'm feeling this way too, so that is why I am making this post on this blog today: For you guys to know the main candidates so that you can form your own opinions on who to vote for, and also so that I personally know who would be my first pick as I write this.

Let's begin, shall we?

Currently, four official candidates are vying to succeed António Guterres as the next United Nations Secretary-General, with their terms starting on January 1, 2027. The candidates are Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Rafael Grossi (Argentina), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), and Macky Sall (Senegal). They participated in "interactive dialogues" with UN Member States in late April 2026.

Starting things off, we have Michelle Bachelet:

Michelle Bachelet is a Chilean politician who made history as the first female president of Chile, serving two non-consecutive terms (2006–2010 and 2014–2018). She was nominated as a candidate on February 2, 2026, by a coalition including Chile, Brazil, and Mexico. In her interactive dialogue, she emphasizes the need for dialogue, humanitarian law, and a stronger UN field presence.

But even before being nominated, Bachelet had many roles within the United Nations. For example, she served as the world's principal human rights official from 2018 to 2022. She was also the founding Executive Director of UN Women (2010–2013), focusing on women's economic empowerment.

Next up we have Rafael Grossi:

Rafael Grossi is an Argentinian diplomat serving as the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2019. He is widely recognized for his mediation in high-stakes nuclear crises and was recently named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People for 2026. Grossi is currently a declared candidate to succeed the next United Nations Secretary-General, presenting his vision for a more "assertive" UN in early 2026 (Ooh, that sounds interesting… Don't know what he means by "assertive", but I'm sure it means something good-).

Grossi has also done other mediative work, too. For example, Grossi has personally led missions to the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to prevent disaster during the Russian invasion. In Iran, he also remains the central figure in negotiating access to Iranian nuclear sites, stressing that any deal without IAEA verification is an "illusion". And most notably, he has raised alarms that up to 20 countries could potentially pursue nuclear weapons if current treaties like the NPT are not strengthened.

Now, so far we have some pretty solid candidates, but next up we have Rebeca Grynspan:

Rebeca Grynspan is a Costa Rican economist currently serving as the Secretary-General of UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). In March 2026, she was officially nominated by the government of Costa Rica to become the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, seeking to succeed António Guterres when his term ends at the end of the year.

Her platform focuses on reforming the UN, working for peace, and addressing future challenges to ensure that "nobody gets left behind". Just like Michelle Bachelet, if she is voted as the Secretary-General, then this would make her the first woman to be elected Secretary-General.

And finally, we have Macky Sall:

Macky Sall is a Senegalese statesman who served as the 4th President of Senegal from 2012 to 2024. As of April 2026, he is a primary candidate to succeed António Guterres as United Nations Secretary-General.

His core platform focuses on "preventive diplomacy," internal UN reform, and bridging global divides. However, His bid lacks endorsement from the current Senegalese government and has sparked domestic opposition due to his record on human rights during his final years in office as Senegalese president.

So, now that we know who the potential successors to Guterres are, who would be my personal choice?

Well… My personal choice is Rafael Grossi. This is because not only has he warned the general public countless times about the consequences of nuclear warfare, but he says his vision as Secretary-General is for a more "assertive" UN, which could potentially mean that the UN might try harder than they have already been.

(Potential end to the whole "the UN is useless" rhetoric, question mark?… Kidding, kidding… Unless…?)

However, just because Grossi is my choice does not mean he should be your choice. This post is meant only to help you stay informed and maybe to act as a guide to help you form your own opinions on the matter.

But regardless of who ends up becoming the new Secretary-General… Guterres, thank you for your service.

🇺🇳

===========

Presented by The Devout UN Lady

==============

Picture this: It's the 90s, and you're wanting to watch an anime that probably has some revealing costume designs but your friends still say it's really good. So you ask your mom, "Hey! I want to watch this anime! My friends really like it!", but she goes "No", because, to her, this anime is not appropriate for your age.

That is the narrative that some people online seem to be giving the United Nations, or UN, accusing them of "wanting to ban anime/manga".

Now, I, the Devout UN Lady, hadn't heard about this until I was 12, but I could never find the words to confront the narrative directly. But today, I'm here to analyze this claim.

So, is the UN wanting to ban anime?

Well… No. The United Nations has not banned anime nor have they ever implied that they wanted to ban anime, but UN committees have repeatedly pressured Japan to tighten regulations on certain types of manga, anime, and video games, particularly those depicting sexual violence or sexualized representations of minors.

First of all, the concerns focus on "loli" (underage-looking girls) and "shota" (underage-looking boys) content, which the UN argues can normalize sexual exploitation of children. And, unbelievably enough, it could, as Wiktionary defines loli content as, quote, "Attraction (often erotic) to fictional depictions of young, typically prepubescent girls", and "shota" as, quote, "A sexual complex where an adult is attracted to young, typically prepubescent boys, or the fictional depictions thereof".

UN human rights reports have also previously asked for tighter regulations on the creation and distribution of fictional content that depicts sexual acts involving characters who appear to be minors, but representatives of the Japanese media industry and government have historically defended these creations as creative freedom and fictional depictions that do not harm real people, arguing against a ban. However, while creative freedom is valid, the "fictional depictions that do not harm real people" argument doesn't work when you remember that fiction can actually impact and influence things that happen in the real world.

For example, fictional romance novels may portray toxic or abusive relationships as desirable, influencing young readers to accept these dangerous dynamics in real life. Similarly, if sexualization of minors is normalized in the media that we consume, it could have a negative impact not only on the psychological wellbeing of adult viewers, but also on the mental and physical wellbeing of children who might be victimized as well.

It is also important to note that the UN does not actually have the authority to create international law or ban artistic content globally. Their recommendations are intended for Japan’s internal legislation. Therefore, if they did have the power to "ban anime" like people claim they do, it would not only make zero sense logically, but it would also be very unlawful and unethical, which is precisely the opposite of everything the UN stands for.

So no, the UN is actually not banning anime and the statement that they are is false information that was started by predators that are probably furious that the UN (gasp) dared to call out their favorite media? (Oh, the horror!… 🙄) and therefore, it is misinformation and has been hereby debunked by the Devout UN Lady.

🇺🇳

============