The Need and Feasibility of the UN to Lead the Human Community in Creating a Digital Planet(004)
3. Money is killing the UN
The United Nations, or humanity, may not be doing anything wrong, and perhaps every choice has its inevitability. But what you sow is bound to bear fruit. On the whole, for the past 200–300 years, the capitalist market economy has greatly satisfied mankind’s demand for material wealth and promoted the unprecedented development of human material civilisation, while at the same time causing irreparable damage to the ecology of the planet and to human ecology. The most direct consequence of this is the formation of a human society in which “everything depends on money”. In this society, money can make everything, but it can also destroy everything.
In other words, “it’s all the fault of money”. Today, money is killing the United Nations and money is killing the future of humanity.
But this money society has been around for centuries. In the first 50 years or so of its existence, the United Nations was also a money society, and it was a smooth and prosperous one. How is it that in the last decade or two, it has been subjected to a lot of constraints and problems. To solve this mystery about the UN is to solve the mystery about the fate of humanity. It is only by doing so that we can fundamentally dispel all the flukes and empty illusions that people have about the current mechanism of human civilisation.
We can tell this story from China’s reform and opening up.
In 1978, China embarked on a historical journey of reform and opening up. During the first 13 years of reform and opening up, from 1978 to 1991, the utilisation rate of “foreign capital” in Chinese society was pitifully low. At that time, it was mainly Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan capital that entered mainland China. However, with such limited capital utilisation, China’s early reform and opening up still achieved significant development.
The data in Figure 10 shows this. When the utilization of foreign capital began to increase significantly in 1991. The number of companies using foreign capital increased by an unprecedented amount. Since then, even though the utilisation rate has continued to increase year on year, the number of enterprises has not seen the same spike. The number of enterprises has not seen the same spike in growth since then.
What do we want to say with this data. It shows that in our capitalist-dominated world, any new change, any new system, at the beginning of its development, even if the capital invested is still very small and insufficient, can make great progress if it goes in the right direction. Once this stage has been passed, any further progress will have to rely on a much larger investment of capital. Moreover, in the middle to late stages, even if capital is invested in large quantities on a sustained basis, the effect may not be as good as in the early stages. But, without a sustained large investment of capital in the later stages, it is simply not possible to progress. This case, too, explains why the work of the UN was so effective in the early stages and so weak in the later stages that it eventually had to introduce some self-deceptive programmes to deal with the international community.
“Middle-income trap”. This refers to a situation where a country reaches a certain income level due to certain advantages, but stays at that economic level. This is actually the situation that the term is trying to explain. In the first period, a huge dividend has been paid because of changes in the system and rules. In the later period, to continue to reap this dividend, it is necessary to rely on larger capital investment. And often this is a period when the return on investment on capital investment is already much less than before. So, it is basically impossible to get huge capital to keep investing again. As a result, the country’s economic development will undoubtedly come to a standstill. This is the root cause of the “middle-income trap”.
In the case of the United Nations, there is no escape from this capitalist destiny as well. Although the United Nations is not an economy, in this market economy, nothing works without economics, without money. When the UN was first built, a small amount of capital could make a big difference. At this time, the return that capital can perceive is very high. But the further back you go, the more capital is needed for the UN to make a real difference. And the investment of capital in the UN is often an indirect, or forward, effect. The further back you go, the bigger the indirect circle and the longer the forward drag. For capital, which is in a hurry, the only option is to abandon the UN. And at a stage of development when the UN has to invest massively in order to stay afloat. Once it has become a pariah, it will inevitably make every step of the UN’s operation difficult. In doing so, capital is killing the UN.
On October 19, 2021, David Beasley, Executive Director of the United Nations Food Programme (WFP), sent out a tweet. It said that by 2020, the net worth of the richest 400 people in the United States had increased by 40%, for a total increase of $4.5 trillion. And 42 million hungry people around the world are on the verge of life and death due to epidemics, natural disasters and wars. If these wealthy people could give 0.36% of their increased net worth to the United Nations, they could save these hungry people from death.
What Beasley says is certainly a fact. But, so what if it is a fact, these richest Americans obviously won’t buy it because, well, they don’t think it’s worth it. So, none of them took Beasley’s word for it. Yet, faced with more than 40 million poor people struggling with the life and death of hunger. As an official of the WFP, you can’t just ignore them. But how can we save them without money? The UN relies entirely on international donations for disaster and refugee relief. The United Nations has no budget for relief funds, except for the United Nations office and peacekeeping costs, which are shared by Member States. Without the kindness and compassion of the rich, there is nothing Beasley can do to help these tens of millions of lives that are disappearing before our eyes. Beasley has no choice but to turn directly to Musk, the new richest man in the world in the 2020 Forbes list.
First, he congratulated Musk on his rise to $221 billion in assets, replacing Bezos as the world’s richest man. Then, he hoped that he, the new richest man in the world, would donate US$6.6 billion. With such a sum of money, the United Nations would be able to save these 42 million starving people from death. This is undoubtedly a great merit.
On October 31, Musk tweeted back. The implication was that if WFP could tell him exactly how to use the $6 billion to solve world hunger, he would immediately go ahead and sell Tesla shares. Obviously, Musk is intentionally confusing Beasley here. Beasley is talking about using $6.6 billion to save the lives of over 40 million hungry people. And Musk is talking about $6 billion to solve global hunger. How is that possible. This is nothing more than a euphemism for Musk’s way of pushing his luck.
Of course, as a UN official, using this approach would be tantamount to publicly forcing donations. It must be admitted that it is quite uncalled for. But let’s put ourselves in Beasley’s shoes. Faced with tens of millions of starving people living and dying, he could not find any other way than this next best thing. So Beasley responded positively, not only offering a concrete relief plan, but also willing to meet with Musk at any time and any place. However, the matter remained unresolved in the end. It’s not Musk’s fault, because, as the owner of the money, it is Musk’s sacred duty to operate it in a way that maximises the return on his investment. And of course, it’s not on Beasley either, if he wasn’t responsible and committed enough, why would he bother begging others in such a painstaking manner.
Without money, the UN can’t do anything. It can’t solve the climate problem, it can’t save starving people from dying, it can’t resettle displaced refugees, it can’t eliminate the wars that are raging ……
Global humanitarian aid and protection needs money. In this regard, the UN has raised only $1.7 billion in 2021, let alone to assist 300 million people. Even targeting just the 160 million most vulnerable people would require $35 billion. $1.7 billion is less than 5%. It’s like a drop in the bucket.
Yemen needs money, Somalia needs money, Afghanistan needs money, everywhere needs money. But the UN has no money of its own, and the money raised through the international community is not nearly enough. So, everything the UN has to do. As long as money is involved, it can only do as much as it can, as reluctantly as it can. But then, the people who donate money are not happy. We donate money, but you still can’t solve the problem effectively. So what’s the point of giving you money. That’s why Musk responded the way he did. I donate $6 billion, no problem. But will it solve the problem? Will it solve the root cause of global hunger? If it doesn’t, I’m not willing to do that, so go find someone who will. This is the crux of the point made earlier that the return on investment for donations to the UN is becoming increasingly unsatisfactory to capital. And more people, having seen that their donations have not had the desired effect, will of course not give again next time. This is a vicious circle.
(to be continued)
The English translation is mainly done by AI and is inevitably not accurate enough. Please refer to the original Chinese text below for a more accurate understanding.
联合国引领人类社会打造数字地球的必要性和可行性（004）
— — 致联合国秘书长古特雷斯及全球贤达的公开信
3，金钱正在扼杀联合国
联合国也好、人类也好，或许并没有做错什么，或许每一步选择都有它的必然性。但是，你种下什么种子，就必然结出什么果。总体上来说，近200–300年来，资本主义的市场经济体制，在极大地满足了人类对物质财富的需求、促进人类物质文明获得前所未有发展的同时，也对地球生态、人类生态，造成了难以弥补的巨大损害。最直接的后果，就是形成了一个“一切向钱看”的人类社会。在这个社会，金钱可以造就一切，金钱也可以毁灭一切。
也就是说，“都是金钱惹的祸”。今天，金钱正在扼杀联合国，金钱正在扼杀人类的未来。
可是，这个金钱社会已经存在几百年了。同是这个金钱社会，联合国在成立的最初50年左右，不也是顺风顺水、一路高歌猛进吗。怎么到了近一二十年，就处处受制、诸事不顺呢。破解联合国的这个疑惑，也就是在破解人类命运的疑惑。才能从根本上破除人们对当前人类文明机制的种种侥幸心理和空洞幻想。
这个故事，我们可以从中国的改革开放讲起。
1978年，中国开启了改革开放的历史征程。从1978年到1991年，这改革开放的最初13年间，中国社会的“外资”利用率少得可怜。当时，主要进入中国大陆的还是港澳台资本。可是，在这么有限的资金利用情况下，中国前期的改革开放依然获得了长足的发展。
图10的数据表明。当1991年，外资利用率开始大幅增加时。使用外资的企业数量更是得到了史无前例的暴增。而这以后，即便外资利用率还是在逐年提高。企业数量却再也没有出现那样的增长高峰了。
我们想用这个数据说明什么呢。说明在我们这个资本主义主导的世界上，任何一个新的变革、新的体系，在发展之初，即使投入的资本还很少、很不足，只要方向对头，都能获得长足的进步。而一旦过了这个阶段，再想进步，就必须依赖更大资本的投入了。而且，在中后期，即便资本持续大量投入，都未必会有前期那么好的效应。但是，如果后期没有资本持续大量的投入，那是根本无法进步的。这个案例，也解释了联合国的工作，为什么前期卓有成效，而后期疲软不堪，以至于最终不得不推出一些自欺欺人的方案，来应对国际社会。
“中等收入陷阱（Middle income trap）”。指一个国家因某些优势达到一定收入水准，但停留在该经济水准的情况。这个名词想解释的，其实也就是这么一种状况。前期因为制度和规则的变革，获得了巨大的红利。后期，要想继续获得这份红利，必须依靠更大规模的资本投入。而往往这个时期，资本投入的投资回报率已经大大不如以前。于是，再想获得巨大资本持续不断投入，基本没这种可能了。这样一来，国家经济发展，也无疑会陷入停滞。这就是造成“中等收入陷阱”的根本原因。
联合国的情况，也同样逃脱不了这个资本宿命。虽然联合国不是一个经济体，但在这个市场经济环境下，任何一项工作都离不开经济、离不开金钱。联合国建成之初，很少一点资本就能发挥很大作用。这时候，资本所能感受到的回报率是很高的。可越往后走，联合国要想真正发挥作用，所需要的资本越大。而资本对联合国的投入往往是间接效应、或远期效应。越往后走，间接绕的圈子更大了、远期拖的时间更长了。对于急功近利的资本来说，当然只能选择抛弃联合国。而在联合国必须大规模增加投资、才能维持正常运转的发展阶段。一旦成为了资本的弃儿，必然会让联合国后期运作的每一步都举步维艰。资本这样做，无异于对联合国的扼杀。
2021年10月19日，联合国粮食计划署（WFP）执行主任大卫·比斯利发了一则推文。说到2020年，美国最富有的400人，净资产增加了40%，增加的净资产总额为4.5万亿美元。而受疫情、自然灾害和战争影响，全球有4200万饥民正处在生死边缘。如果这些富人能拿出他们增加的0.36%净资产捐给联合国，就能拯救这些饥民免于死亡。
比斯利说的当然是一个事实。可是，事实又怎样，这些最富有的美国人显然不会买账，因为，他们认为不值得。所以，没有一人搭理比斯利。然而，面对着4000多万挣扎在饥饿生死线上的穷人。作为联合国粮食计划署的官员，总不能见死不救吧。可是，没有钱怎么救？联合国的灾民、难民救济金，完全靠国际社会捐助。联合国经费开支中，只有会员国分摊的联合国办公费和维和费，没有救济金这项经费预算。在这种情况下，如果没有富人发善心、发慈悲，就算看着这几千万条生命一个一个从我们眼前消失，比斯利也毫无办法。无奈之下，比斯利不得不直接向2020年福布斯富豪榜的新任世界首富马斯克求助了。
首先，他恭贺马斯克资产上升到了2210亿美元，取代贝佐斯成为了世界首富。然后，希望他这个新晋世界首富能捐助66亿美元。有了这么一笔钱，联合国就能拯救这4200万饥民免于死亡。这无疑是一件天大的功德。
10月31日，马斯克在推特上回复了。意思是，如果WFP能够告诉他，具体如何使用这60亿美元解决世界饥饿问题，他立即就去卖特斯拉股票。显然，马斯克在这里有意混淆了比斯利的意思。比斯利是说用66亿美元拯救4000多万饥民生命。而马斯克说的是用60亿美元解决全球饥饿问题。那怎么可能呢。这无非是马斯克的一种委婉推托方式而已。
当然，作为联合国官员，用这种方式等于在公开逼捐了。必须承认，这是很不应该的。可是，我们设身处地为比斯利想想。面对几千万生死一线的饥民，除了这个下策，他再也找不到其他办法了。于是，比斯利积极回应，不仅可以给出具体救助计划，还愿意在任何时间、任何地点与马斯克见面。然而，这件事最终仍然是不了了之。这怪不得马斯克，因为，作为这笔金钱的主人，追逐最大的投资回报率，是马斯克的运作金钱的神圣职责。当然，也怪不得比斯利，如果不是他有足够的责任心和使命感，又何苦这样去苦苦乞求他人。
没有钱，联合国什么也干不了。解决不了气候问题，拯救不了生死线上的饥民，安置不了流离失所的难民，消弭不了此起彼伏的战争……
全球人道援助和保护需要钱。在这方面，联合国2021年只筹集到了17亿元，别说救助3亿人了。即使仅针对1.6亿最脆弱的人群，也需要350亿美元。17亿美元，还不到5%。无异于杯水车薪啊。
也门需要钱、索马里需要钱、阿富汗需要钱，到处都需要钱。可是，联合国自己没有钱，通过国际社会筹集到的钱又远远不够。所以，联合国要开展的一切工作。只要涉及到钱，都只能是勉力而为，能做多少做多少。可这样一来，捐钱的人就不满意了。我们捐了钱，可你们依然不能有效解决问题。那我捐钱给你们又有什么作用。马斯克之所以那样回复，道理也在这里。我捐60亿美元，没问题。可是，能解决问题吗，能从根本上解决全球饥饿问题吗。如果解决不了，只是头疼医头，脚疼医脚，这样的事情我是不愿意干的，谁愿干你去找谁吧。这就是前面所言，给联合国捐款的投资回报率越来越让资本感到不满意的症结所在。而更多的人，在看到自己的捐款没有收到预期效果后，下一次他当然就不会再捐了。这就是一种恶性循环。
（未完待续）
