What I took away from our meeting with the Bolivian United Nations:
Acting as the global mediator, the United Nations holds the heavy responsibility of enforcing the desires of the majority of it’s global participants. Bolivia, then, is currently a country of focus due to its subversion to global interest on the illegality of the coca plant. Acting as both national president and head of the coca plant union, Evo Morales claims to advocate for the production of coca as a protection of indigenous culture in its medicinal use for overcoming altitude sickness. However, according to Robert Brockmann, only 15% of the total production is used for medicinal chewing coca; the remainder is then exported to Peru, Columbia, and eventually Brazil to be refined into cocaine and exported abroad on the black market. At this point I’m wondering what measures the UN takes in preventing such illegal activity considering this one country is almost single-handedly responsible for feeding cocaine to the entire world. Apparently, the Bolivian UN is unable to inhibit this illegal trade other than by attempting to enforce the production restrictions established by the UN, yet this seems futile considering more than twice the legal amount of coca is being produced, leaving this issue continuous and unsolved.
Then, I inquired about the proposition of establishing a nuclear department that will be advanced on the next voting ballot, but the Bolivian UN claims it has no opinion on the matter. The United Nations, who supposedly advocates for the betterment of the majority of this world, has no opinion or position on a matter that could potentially affect all mankind…
So if they can’t make any large steps in preventing the creation and global trade of cocaine and they have no real opinion on a proposal that could demolish existence as we know it, what is the purpose of the Bolivian UN? These are issues that affect not only the Bolivian nation but the world at large, hence the creation of a United Nations. I just can’t seem to understand the logic of this situation. I do understand the delicate position in which the organization stands, it has only as much power and influence as the nation allows, but it seems that issues as ubiquitous and pervasive as these should prompt a stronger opposition from the “moral power” of our world.