Dissolution of UN: Solve UNHCR Refugee Issue
- Admin Gauge
- Jul 19, 2025
- 8 min read
Iran and Pakistan Try to Solve UNHCR Refugee Problem
Recently, Iran and Pakistan gradually became aware of the UNHCR Refugees. And they try to solve this issue by the mass deportation of UNHCR refugees.
However, the numbers of the UNHCR refugees are extremely big (6 million to 11 million), unlike other countries. Since the origin of the Afghanistan Refugees are "Gulag" (jails for the worst war criminals of WWII), it is very dangerous to let such terrorists be concentrated in one place. Terrorist power will be multiplied if they cooperate with the numerous terrorist friends.
Originally, Stalin sent such severe war criminals to Kyrgyzstan, Siberia, and Kazakhstan. But the peace created by Stalin did not last for a long time. In 1953 after Stalin died, such terrorists were released by Khrushchev. It took almost for 10 years to terminate the first reconquista by war criminal regime (Korean war Mitsubishi, Eisenhower, Khrushchev, Kennedy, etc.). In the end Kennedy was killed, and Khrushchev was ousted. Such people disappeared from the statistics for few years. And then, many of them were killed by Maoism Revolution in China.
Since Maoism Revolution, China is struggling to fighting against the Gulag fugitives. The Gulag fugitives caused the fall of Berlin in 1989 and Soviet in 1991. However, people can not live in the Dark Age where law order is collapsed. An innovative and better solution is needed to solve the problem of these refugees.
Dissolution of UNHCR comes first? Or deportation?
Iran and Pakistan deport UNHCR refugees now. However, if they deport the 6 to 11 million "Afghanistan" refugees, the mass deported UNHCR refugees will invade Afghanistan.
During this deportation, ICC issued arrest warrant against Afghanistan government officials. This is a very typical way to invade a country by pretending as a universal justice. However, ICC's fund cam from private sectors partly (Rome Statute Article 116).
In fact, Afghanistan is just the first recipient country but not their origin. Their real origin is Gulag - jails for war criminals. So, if the UNHCR refugees will be deported, it should be Siberia Gulag or their real original places (Habsburg Austria Empire and Japanese Empire) before they were arrested. However, the refugees already committed severe war crimes which are worth to death penalty. Is it really safe to deport them to their home countries without any penalty? Also, UNHCR tend to reuse such terrorists as soldiers to invade countries.
The process of solving this critical problem should be considered more. The followings are my concerns.
1. Deportation of UNHCR Refugees First, or Dissolution of UNHCR?
If the mass deportation of the refugees is conducted by UNHCR and Red Cross as usual, it is very obvious that UNHCR and Red Cross will repeat the invasion by using such terrorist refugee soldiers in other countries. So, I think that dissolve or purge of UNHCR/ Red Cross offices in the refugee war zone should come first.
As for the "refugee war zone" (anti-UNHCR alliance), it includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Myanmar, Iraq and Syria which already experienced the severe invasion by such UNHCR refugee (Gulag fugitives). Perhaps, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Germany also want to join in this anti-UNHCR alliance. Also, if the problem of UNRWA is included in this process, I am sure that Israel will join in this group.
The real origin of UNRWA was "UN Refugees in West Asia" which mainly helped Armenian refugee, Romanov Russian refugees, Habsburg Austrian empire refugees, and Japanese empire refugees. UNRWA head office was once in Vienna (Austria). In fact, the UNHCR offices mainly exist in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. (=West Asia) And only such countries have 4 or 5 UNHCR offices. So, the origin of UNHCR and UNRWA are the same. But UNHCR became independent from UNRWA (UNRWA was established earlier than UNHCR, according to their official webpage) perhaps because UNHCR started to deal with Siberia Gulag fugitives, or UNHCR refugees spread to the whole world (recipient countries became worldwide).
In any case, some countries already have strong motivations to withdraw from UNHCR. And if other countries do not withdraw from UNHCR/ UNRWA, they have the higher risk to accept refugees in their own countries. So, the countries which want to avoid the refugee crisis will compete the speed to resign UNHCR and stop funding on them. This good competition will cause a rapid shrink and dissolution of UNHCR.
However, there is one possible risk, at least. For example, if the country withdraw from UNHCR but stay in other part of UN (UNSC, UNDP, IMF, etc.), there is a high risk that globalists use the infrastructure to attack the country.
2. Dissolution of UNHCR First or the whole UN?
If the country only resigns UNHCR, there is a high risk that other UN offices and their related infrastructure will be used to attack the country. This is exactly the "ratification of a treaty based on violence and intimidation" which is prohibited by 1969 Vienna Convention (Article 49-52). However, UN do not follow the international treaties as they deployed UNHCR refugees in Pakistan/ Myanmar/ Bangladesh (the three countries do not ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention). So, just like what happen to the League of Nations during WWII, the dissolution of UN itself should be considered.
There are two approaches to dissolve UN. The one is by the mass withdrawal of countries (which also caused the dissolution of League of Nations). And the other approach is to stop funding on UN or penalize the funding.
2-1. Dissolution of UN by Mass Withdrawals
I roughly drew a map of possible countries which will withdraw from UN. The colors show their main reason to withdraw from UN.
As comparing the map when the League of Nations was dissolved, I think that the anti-UN alliance area already covers a wider realm than the anti-LN league in 1945. When the tower of LN was collapsed, 19 countries already withdrew from LN. The map shows that the major cultural group which fought against the LN were Russians, Latin and Germans. It include the legendary "expulsion of Soviet from LN" in 1939. After Soviet got fired from LN, Soviet expanded its realm which covered the whole area of the current Baltic countries. In the map below, the area of Soviet is simplified as the current Russia. So, I add another map which shows the area of Soviet around 1945.
So, it is already not just a big dream to dissolve UN and regain the independence of each country.
As for the Red Cross, re-nationalization of blood supply system is needed in addition to the dissolution of their office in each country. In Islam countries, it is not Red Cross, but Red Crescent. However, Red Crescent and Red Cross have a mutual organization. Red Cross often smuggles prisoners the via tunnel route (underground route like Mauthausen Concentration Camp) and fake food supply volunteers to prisoners. So, their volunteer (?) work in jails should be banned by law or public order.
2-2. Cut Funding on UN
The second approach is about their finance. UN often closes their office due to financial issue. If they can not collect an adequate level of donation, they tend to close their office by themselves. However, this approach does not guarantee the detentions of UN officials who invaded the countries by using the smuggled terrorists. Funding cut just contributes to avoid expansion of their crime.
I heard that UN already ran out of cash because member states do not pay for them.
Where the UNHCR Refugees Go without UN/ Red Cross?
If the dissolution/ purge of UN/ UNHCR is successfully accomplished, we need to think about the future of the UNHCR refugees (Gulag fugitives) the next.
During/ after WWII, Soviet and Germany (+ their occupation area) mainly offered the places for the concentration camps (jails) to detain war criminals. As far as I know, such concentration camps also existed in Sahara, Spain, and Latin America. The numbers of war criminals are surprisingly huge (10 million or more). And their crime level is extremely high. If such people are sent to only one place, the risk of multiplication of their terrorist power will become very high.
So, it is needed to establish a multipolar concentration camp system. The hubs of such concentration camps should be enclosed by the countries with strong land forces, and possibly without direct access to the sea (to avoid their cooperation with pirates). For example, the potential jail hubs could be Siberia/ Kyrgyzstan/ Kazakhstan (enclosed by Russia, China, and Persian language group), and Jordan (enclosed by Islam countries and far-right Israel). I think there are some potential places in the central Europe, Africa and South America. But the strongest land forces are needed to enclose such level of war criminals. I do not think that such areas have adequate army. Also, it is possible to expand the defense alliance especially among Islam countries.
For example, there are two groups in the anti-UN alliance.
Group A: Major Powers to manage jails - Russia, China, Persian language countries, Islam countries, Israel far-right, etc.
Group B: anti-UN alliance countries but no major concentration camps around the countries
Political/ Economic Incentives to Group A
Of course, the countries which protect the world should receive political/ economical incentives. For example, if there is another "Soviet" (the international political/ defense conferences), the Group A countries can have stronger political power like Veto, more political seats for them, etc. As for the economic incentive, the current monetary system itself was established by war criminals (gold standard, debt standard etc.). So, the design of the reward for them is only possible after the new monetary system is launched. And such legal monetary system will naturally solve the economic problems in the independent states. Maybe the possible incentive for the Group A will be related to the donation of natural resources from the Group B (within the alliance but without major concentration camps). It can be regarded as a kind of tax (to conduct the jail management). If a country in the Group A failed to manage the concentration camps and experienced a mass fugitive, coup, etc., the country might be downgraded to the Group B, or even out of the alliance (in the case of coup). So, this status is not permanent.
Supply of Soldiers from Group B (Education and Knowledge Transfer)
Also, Group B can contribute to the supply of soldiers to Group A. This defense cooperation is also meaningful to share defense knowledge (educational purpose). And it will strengthen the defense power/ knowledge of the area of Group B in the case when war criminals run away from the jails again. It is important to reduce the places where war criminals can flee to. The walls of the jails are better to be thicker and thicker.
Location of Jails for War Criminals
Perhaps, it is better to rotate the location of prisoners constantly because prisoners with accumulated knowledge for the region will lead the coup/ political movement more easily. If a prisoners know about the soil/ map/ language/ politics/ people of the region where his jail exists, he can easily dig tunnels, find a way to conduct a coup. So, it is better to cut the possibility of their strong inner cooperation by the constant rotation.
Comments