Thursday, September 24, 2026

0:00It's Thursday, September 24, 2026. I'm Albert Molar, and this is the briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. Well there are so many big events going on right now in Washington, DC, and in New York City. And when it comes to foreign policy, it's a target rich environment. But we need to start at the United Nations because as we discuss what is taking place is the 2026 General Assembly session of the United Nations. Here's a headline for you. It is found in the Wall Street Journal. World leaders nearly all agree that United Nations is failing. Now, how's that for a headline? In other words, as the UN General Assembly is meeting, the big story is, this isn't working. I want to argue that the big story is, it really never has worked. I think the even bigger story might be, it can't work. Very important Christian concerns are playing into this. Another one, of course, we hope for world peace. We hope for peace everywhere. But we also know that one of the grave dangers is crying peace where there is no peace.

1:03And the reality is that the United Nations has been an incredible humanistic experiment in trying to apply the skills and the networks of international relations and principles of cooperation in something that would amount to what was not supposed to be a world government, but in some cases was supposed to act like one. Now obviously for Christians there are big concerns here. And as you look at this, you recognize these have been big concerns for the United States going back for a very long time. I mean, in the background to all of this, we need to remember not the successful founding of the United Nations in 1945, we need to remember the absolute collapse of what was called the League of Nations and American involvement in the League of Nations very early in the 20th century. And so early efforts to try to create something like a world parliament or some kind of League of Nations that would be able to keep nations in check and keep nation from fighting against nation. That failed early on, not only by the fact that even as Woodrow Wilson was on the chief

2:04architects as president of the United States, couldn't bring his own country into ratifying the treaty. The reality is that what came shortly thereafter was not the avoidance of war, but rather the most tadicchlismic war in human history known as World War II. In the aftermath of World War II, and even as the allies were envisioning the post-war period, they wanted to come up with some kind of mechanism that might at least avoid certain global conflicts. And yet almost inevitably when the United Nations was established, it was launched with grandiose plans. It turns out that human beings, particularly perhaps in the modern age, want a cosmopolitan peace. Now, you need to recognize that that is a loaded term. It goes back to a manual Kant, one of the most influential philosophers in the modern tradition, and one of the most dominant figures in the early modern age. That's when much of this came out. He talked about this desire for a cosmopolitan peace that requires something like a cosmopolitan order.

3:05And of course, the Enlightenment philosophers thought that humanity would come of age and enlightened by, well, Enlightenment thought. They would find a way to find peace rather than war. Of course, that fell apart catastrophically over and over again. But the modern Enlightenment, particularly in what can be described as a post-Christian age in terms of the dominant influence, there absolutely convinced that there would be some way to achieve some kind of, if not universal peace, then overwhelming peace. Now, the article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, that one with the headline, World Leaders, nearly all agree that United Nations is failing. He comes back to the fact that, as you look at the world situation right now, let's look at, for instance, three big issues. And just about everyone looking at the United Nations would understand that if there is a United Nations and these nations are united, there would be some kind of common front in terms of dealing with, for example, Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Now several years old. And if it was an aggressive act, it was an aggressive act by an historically aggressive

4:08nation or empire looking at Russia. But there's no doubt it was Ukraine that was invaded. And that's a violation of every principle of the United Nations, including the fact, by the way, that both Ukraine and Russia were member states of the United Nations, didn't stop Russia. Then you also look at other situations such as the regime, the Theocratic Islamist regime in Iran, and you'll notice that when it comes to Iran, when it comes to the current conflict between the United States and Iran, the United Nations has basically very little to say about it and almost nothing to do about it. And when you're looking at trying to resolve the issue, the United Nations is at this point pretty much useless. You look at other issues right now, think about the big headlines on artificial intelligence. Look at how many countries are saying we need some kind of common international approach to artificial intelligence. But as just about every observer, not only of artificial intelligence, but of the United Nations will tell you, the race when it comes to artificial intelligence is not about

5:11a lot of nations. It is about two nations. It is about the United States and China. Now, that's going to take us into our second major concern for today. And that's the visit of the Chinese Communist leader, President Xi Jinping, to the White House, okay? But hold that for a moment. Let's go back to the United Nations. It was formally established on the 26th of June, 1945. And of course, you have World War II coming to an end. You have the United States and its allies seeking to establish some kind of new world order. But at the same time, the United States was all for it to a point. And nations such as the Soviet Union, all for it to a point. As a matter of fact, from the very beginning, it was clear that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union nor has it turned out France or the United Kingdom, that is Britain, would agree to the formation of the United Nations that did not basically tilt the table towards those four powers. Now China has joined those four powers.

6:12So this is now referred to as the P5, the permanent five when it comes to the United Nations Security Council, okay? So by the way, that's another big issue. When you look at the General Assembly, there are 193 member nations. All right, that's a lot. That is almost, you could just say, a parable. How in the world could you even have representation or voice or influence from 193 nations? But when it comes to the 193 nations, they're at the General Assembly. They get to hear a lot of speeches. They serve on committees and task forces and all the rest. But the reality is they don't have that much influence. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly of the United Nations is not even at the United Nations where the power is. The power is in what is called the Security Council. And on the Security Council, limited seats. And five of those seats are held by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, now the successor state to the Soviet Union, and China.

7:13And here's the thing. They have veto power. Okay, so should the United Nations take actions to sanction Russia for its invasion of Ukraine? Well, good luck with that because Russia can veto anything meaningful. Take action against the United States or China or both of them together on issues of artificial intelligence. Try to come up with some kind of binding law that would affect the United States and China. Guess what? You can pretty much count on both the United States and China vetoing such a proposal. Well then you say, well, at least when it comes to the Islamist threat coming from Iran, all five of those nations would certainly be in agreement, but they're not. And so, right now, China and Russia have something to gain by the United States being tied down by this military conflict with Iran. Frankly, it is also true that China has been buying crude oil from Iran against international sanctions. Russia, let's just say it's involved in many ways and Iran is, well, it's in the neighborhood. And so you are really looking at the fact that when you look at the United Nations, it's

8:17the Security Council and there is no agreement on the Security Council about anything that would be truly meaningful on what we just agreed were the three big issues of the day. So on all three, when it comes to the United Nations, when you go to the Security Council, strike out. Okay. Now, at this point, things get really interesting. For example, you've had nations such as India and Brazil and they're a part of the so-called BRICS nations. Those are rising economic powers and they want in on this. But at this point, it is to the advantage of no one among the P5, as they are known, to let other nations in. Furthermore, you have action coming from many people saying in the General Assembly, we need to reform the United Nations in order to take away the veto power and what they would say is the stranglehold on the power of the United Nations. We need to simply rein in the Security Council. But in order to do that, the Security Council would have to agree. Well, you do the math. The Security Council is not going to agree to limit its own power.

9:20Furthermore, right now, take the five nations, Russia, Britain, France, the United States, China. Each one of them basically has a veto. And in essence, they have 20% of the vote. Why in the world would they agree to fractionalize their power beyond that? Furthermore, no one wants to add, that is, among the P5, no one wants to add a sixth or seventh or eighth or ninth, you go down the list because that would basically be to displace their own authority and power. Go back to the closing months of World War II. You can even go back to the period, say, from 1944 onward when it was pretty clear that allies would eventually gain victory. The United States and the other nations that were so crucial to the effort, and in particular, that meant the USSR, Britain and the United States entered into conversations about a post-war picture. And in that post-war picture, something like the United Nations became pretty much a part of the proposal in the landscape. But those original three and two of them was added France at the end of the war, wanted

10:24basically to create a platform in which there could be some degree of international cooperation. Even it was argued some degree of international regulation, but neither of those nations, none of those nations. And especially neither the United States or the Soviet Union was about to give up any major power on the world scene. It became very clear, by the way, that whatever the United Nations would be, it would need to be headquartered in the United States. The original idea was to put it facing the Pacific, to put it somewhere near San Francisco, actually in a beautiful spot of land that overlooks the Golden Gate Bridge. However, that was not acceptable to US President Harry S. Truman. After his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, there had been an effort to try to get this thing going, but it was really President Truman who inherited the project. And President Truman did not want it in San Francisco. That was too far from Washington, too far from American oversight. He wanted it where he could get somebody there if there was a problem in a hurry.

11:26And so it ended up in what was called Turtle Bay there in what is now part of Manhattan. You look at all this and you recognize the United States has always been committed to the United Nations, but not very committed. The United States, and for that matter, the other nations, especially in the P5, would never enter into anything like the United Nations if it meant any curtailment of their national sovereignty and national power. And so you're looking at the fact that if the General Assembly of the United Nations tried to do something to change that, those five nations, again, Britain, France, the United States, Russia, and China, they together and individually would never put it in place. But I'm going to put up with that. The current and now outgoing General Secretary of the United Nations, Antonio Gutierrez, he has been calling for additional authority to be given to other nations. He's expressed great frustration that the United Nations has not been able to take a common approach to all these issues. He said, quote, there is another path, a networked world recognizes that no power can solve

12:29today's challenges alone. He goes on to call for more international cooperation. But even as he finishes what amounts to 10 years as Secretary General, he leaves with just about everyone recognizing this isn't working. Now from a Christian perspective, let's think about this for a moment. One of the things we find in Scripture is that it is never a good thing when the nations conspire. And so you look at the Old Testament, the nations conspire, think of as a matter of fact, the Tower of Babel, but also think even of other situations in which nations are conspiring. There is a sense in Scripture that world peace is that which will come only when the Prince of Priests comes in full reign. When the Lord Jesus Christ comes and establishes his kingdom, which will last forever, that peace will be a perfect peace. Short of that, you have at least two big problems. Number one, violence may him bad behavior continues and that includes state actors as well as individual human beings.

13:29And then you also have the problem that national interest is such a huge, well preoccupation of every nation that no nation can really give superior allegiance to something larger than itself. Now here's where you even look at the European Union and look at some of the outlandish claims that were made for that group just a matter of, say, a generation ago and notice the big headlines now are about Spain being Spain, Poland being Poland, Germany being German, you just go down the list. In other words, that universal dream that was supposed to create one Europe and basically one united Europe as a parallel to the United States of America that didn't work because Europe, well you can talk about it as one thing but politically it is not one thing. Nor is the United Nations by any stretch of the imagination. It is a thing which really isn't much of a thing and furthermore really can't be much because the things called nations, especially those with big power and authority, are not

14:30going to surrender that sovereignty. Now here's something else you just need to consider and that is that President Donald Jay Trump does not act like other traditional American presidents in that context. One of the things that certainly appeared when it comes to both Democrats and Republicans is that when you had an American president show up at the United Nations, they sounded sort of united nations. Now that's not to say they simply accepted the claims made by other nations but they were rather well discreet in how they presented things. When they said something rather firmly it made headlines. President Trump speaks firmly. He speaks loudly, he speaks somewhat explosively so consider this headline New York Times about the president's appearance before the United Nations on Tuesday. Quote, Trump tells UN Iran faces a risk of obliteration. Similar headlines and other major media reporting on the story. Instead of saying, you know, we'll find some peaceful way out of this. The president of the United States basically said there could be a peaceful way out of

15:32this but if not, then the United States stands ready. Well, you heard that language to obliterate Iran. It's one of those things that is going to rewrite to some extent the history of the United States and the United Nations. This is going to be one of those moments that one way or another is going to be remembered. But what must also be kept in mind is that there never was a golden era in which the interests of the United States and the interests of the United Nations were the same. And when it comes to an American president, he doesn't work for the United Nations. He works for the United States. One other issue, when you look at the 1950s, 60s and 70s, there was the real rise of what became known as the non-aligned nations. So you had, at one point we're called third world nations and they banded together. And what you see is the fact that there has been a lot of political rhetoric towards a shift away from the big powers towards other powers. Just notice, that's been going on for decades and it hasn't happened.

16:34When it comes to the P5, the magic number is five and the magic word is veto. All right, next we need to face the fact that when you look at the United Nations General Assembly, you have people who are saying, okay, let's look at who's there. And for instance, the first major speaker as a head of state was the president of Brazil, little historical footnote. That's because in early deliberations, many nations were afraid to say much and Brazil's representative got up and was regularly at the microphone. So just as a matter of historical pattern, Brazil goes first. The president of the United States went second. But the big thing we need to recognize here is not only who was there, but who wasn't. And arguably when you're talking about who wasn't, the most glaring example would be the leader of China, President Xi Jinping, who's head of the Communist Party and head of the government and state there in China. And what makes that so singular in terms of its importance is that President Xi did not go to New York, did not appear at the United Nations, did not deliver an address.

17:39But he did come to the United States in the same week and he didn't go to the United Nations. He went instead to joint base Andrews where he landed and was met by the president and the First Lady. And he's here for meetings with the US president at the White House. Okay. That's pretty astounding. By the way, some very interesting things developed in this. The Chinese leader arrived just yesterday at joint base Andrews. And when he landed, the president of the United States and the First Lady were there to welcome him on the tarmac. Okay. That's big. Really big because traditionally in most situations, the president and the First Lady would not be there when the foreign leaders plane arrives. There would be perhaps the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State. There would be other high ranking officials. But the president and the First Lady would welcome the visiting president or head of state and his spouse. They would meet at the White House. And you have the famous motorcades driving up.

18:41And then you have the president of the United States and usually the First Lady walking out and welcoming. You have a red carpet going up from the driveway into the White House. But there was a 100 foot red carpet that stretched all the way down the steps from the Chinese plane right down where there was an honor guard of the US military and then very close to the bottom of the stairs you had the president and the First Lady. As I say, that's an extraordinary statement that happens very rarely. There are several extraordinary statements that are already being made. When it comes to the Trump administration in its second term, state dinners, very rare affairs. There is going to be a state dinner that is connected with the Chinese leaders visit. The president and the White House are rolling out the red carpet. Now this has a lot of international attention because there are a lot of people even inside the United States and the foreign policy establishment who aren't certain exactly what might come out of these talks. And you'll notice that these days when you're talking about the world picture, you are talking

19:45about major powers, go back to the P5 for a moment. But think of France and Britain and Russia, China and the United States. It is China and the United States who are right now, the bipolar realities. So they are two polarities. There's the United States and its political polarity. There is China and its political polarity. And as was the case in the 20th century, certainly in the second half of the 20th century, where the face off, the bipolar world was between Washington and Moscow. Now it is between Washington and Beijing. Now very interesting, you had people at the United Nations and you have others who were saying, look when it comes to artificial intelligence, there really are only two powers. And by the way, they have only two presidents. And those two presidents are going to be meeting together this time at the White House. And so there is a lot of speculation about what will be discussed. But there is also something else that's really big that Christians need to keep in mind. The worldview conflict here, first of all, is between communism and let's face it.

20:47China's communism is right now the most important and powerful communist force on earth. You have that over against democracy and freedom, constitutional self-government. That is the model of the United States. You have freedom versus autocracy. The role of government radically different worldview issues there are just rampant. The model, the political heritage of Western Europe and of North America, the Anglo-Saxon experiment with Britain and the United States and the English-speaking world, its commitment to constitutionalism and freedom, ordered liberty and human dignity, all that came out of a Christian background. There was no such background behind the Chinese Communist Party. But it is very interesting that you have many secular observers looking at the situation right now in terms of these talks between President Trump and President Xi. And they're saying, time is on China's side. China takes a very long view. And you take a long view, by the way, you're talking about an autocratic leader with sham

21:51elections. President Xi can stay in office, presumably, until he dies or there's some kind of uprising in the Chinese Communist leadership. There is no democratic accountability there, period. But there is also a very different understanding of history. And this is where Christians need to understand that when you look at China and it's such an old civilization, it is based on an understanding of time that certainly in terms of many of its classic expressions, you think of Confucianism and look at the entire world picture there, it is of history as an endless wheel or cycle, turning and turning and turning. Thus, China thinks in very long periods of time. Even though arguably, under the communist regime, China has at least politically and policywise moved to a linear view of history. That's far more Western past, present and future. History is a straight line. It's not a wheel that repeats itself. Even though China has, at least in terms of policy, moved into that more Western understanding of time, they still see time in terms of a much, much, much longer perspective than Western

22:58nations. For one thing, there's no democratic accountability, there are no time limits, term limits. President Trump is now approaching the midpoint of his second term in office and constitutionally there can be no future terms. So you say, well, this is the president of the United States and it's the president of China and a room, president and president. But one of them is democratically elected and one of them is an autocratic leader. Two very different things. And Xi Jinping, no doubt thinks, you know, I'm meeting with President Trump today, three years later, there will be a different president. He intends to make sure, at least as so far as it's within his ability, that China comes out ahead over the long haul. What does China mean by the long haul? It thinks in very long terms. Joe and Lai, who was the premiere of China under the Chinese Communist Party leader, Mao Say Tun, he actually was asked one time about what he thought of the French Revolution. He said, it's too early to say, just think about that, it's too early to say.

24:00There were those who came later and said he was really talking about the uprisings of 1968 on French college campuses, but that really doesn't hold water. Instead, it really points to the fact that the Chinese look at time as very long, and here's the thing inevitably on their side. By the way, in the history of Western civilization, that also means that, of course, we begin with in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And it points us to an end, an end of human time. But of course, eternity beyond that in the reign of Christ. But it does mean the history is a line, past, present, and future. When you eliminate that and begin to think of time as endless unfolding, perhaps even in a cycle, you think very differently. That comes out in business decisions, it comes out in all kinds of cultural dimensions, and it comes out in terms of world power, foreign policy, even in war. One final thought in all of this, we need to keep in mind, as Christians, that we are in

25:01a time of war and conflict until Jesus comes. We can hope for, pray for, and strive for a lessening of those conflicts, but the elimination of those conflicts is beyond anything that is defined in the Scripture as reality until Jesus comes. We can hope for agreements between the United States and China, but when it comes to these two adversaries with two very different sets of principles, two very different worldviews, two different sets of priorities, the fact is that regardless of the view of time, at least one of the big issues in these kinds of conversations is whether or not they're just buying some time. But you know, from a realist perspective, Christians understand buying time is not the worst thing that could come out of this. I have to tell you, I am thinking these thoughts and sharing them with you, as I know, right down the street from where I am right now, right close, is both the President of the United States and the President of China.

26:02That's a sobering thought. It certainly informs my prayers this morning. Thanks for listening to the briefing. For more information, go to my website at AlbertMoa.com. You can follow me on X or on Twitter by going to x.com forward slash Albert Moa for information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Go to sbs.edu for information on voice collids just go to voice collids.com. I'm speaking to you from Washington DC and I'll meet you again tomorrow for the briefing.