It has come to the attention of the United Nations that North Korea is quite displeased with the response to its proposed compromise between itsel fand the rest of the world. I, the Chief Administrator, received the following via telegraph in the early morning of 30 November 2006.
"It cannot be in the best interests of member nations not to look into this proposal."
I believe I have firmly outlined the reasoning behind each nations' disapproval of the compromise.
"... it is YOUR job, not mine, to make the international community see the value in this project."
My job is to ensure the maintainence of outright peace and stability throughout the international community...that is the UN's job. I am unsure as to why you've delegated the responsibility of enforcement of YOUR plan toward the UN, especially a plan aimed at destabilizing the status quo. I also lack the knowledge as to why debate continues on this compromise...it is dead in the UN, the US, and China.
"Sadly, your stance, and that of member nations, reveals something shocking: The refusal to relinquish absolute power over the world."
I think you are forgetting that the United Nations IS the world. Our 192 member states make up the majority of the populations of the international community. The sort of cooperation constructed against your idea is actually quite remarkable. Where is the absolute power if all are in agreement?
The following message was telegraphed to my office on 25 November 2006 from Chairman Il:
"You ask where the threat is, Mr. Siegel? The United States certainly found a way to make Iraq a threat, did it not? How many nuclear weapons have they found there Mr. Administrator? We have plenty to fear, Mr. Siegel, this I can assure you. If the United States can simply decide when and under what circumstances it conducts a war, then it must be in the best interests of the Democratic Republic of North Korea that we do all in our power to make sure we are not next in the list of "Rouge States" that the United States plans to conquer and then abandon. If we do not develop the weapons to protect our land, then we are most certainly next. President Bush has in fact issued a pseudo declaration of war in his previous speech, outlining the "Axis of Evil" that needs to be dealt with. In fact, Mr. Administrator, we have much to fear."
Memo of 30 November 2006:
"It cannot be in the best interests of member nations not to look into this proposal. You, sir, could not be more wrong in one of your arguments. The money SAVED from this endevour would reach untold billions. The United States, as I'm sure you are well aware, spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year maintaining its missile fields in the Dakotas and the 7 billion dollar ballistic missle submarines it has prowling around our waters."
This continuous dumping of responsibility onto the shoulders of the United Nations is ill-founded. I fear that you have brought your broken bicycle to a piano repair shop. It is not the UN who blockades your waters this evening. It is not the UN who is constructing trade barriers. No UN resolution was passed to direct men or machine against the Democratic Republic of North Korea. Your chief interests are expressed toward the actions of the United States. Why, then, are you pulling the UN to fix your relationshipial troubles with the US? For the time being, I feel that the outward discrepancies can best be handled within your two nation states. You both must work together to come about a solution. No matter what the international community contributes, you continuously rebuttle with negativity dealing with the United States, not the UN. It seems you are not willing to actively participate until the US meets your needs, something only workable through the US. The UN is, of course, genuinely concerned with the situation, however the continuous assault of UN values through citation of US efforts alone is frustrating and unconstructive. We hope for positive developments in the future so that we can once again work as a whole and push forward.
UN Chief Administrator Siegel