UN created to cause wars?
THE world has a long way to go before global peace can be achieved, forgive us for handing such a bitter pill.
The mess engulfing the United Nations is testimony that the evolution of international unity from being a myth into reality is still a far cry.
When the UN was established in 1945, following the destruction caused by the Second World War, it was pertinent that there would never be a repeat of that or anything close to it.
The opposite has, however, been true.
Conflicts have erupted unabated, with the UN not doing much to facilitate peace in ravaged nations. Syria can attest to that, so can Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq; the list seems endless.
Whatever justifications there is behind the wars, they are still wars and innocent people have suffered and continue to suffer.
People are crying for help, may the UN please hear them.
The 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly ends in New York tomorrow and it is clear that no coherent and convincing framework will be put in place to address this pressing issue.
Instead, United States President Mr Donald Trump used the platform to display his arrogant and reckless persona in his inaugural address at the Assembly.
History will remember him as the statesman who threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea on an international podium.
Mr Trump is spoiling for a war and the UN is unlikely to do anything about it. Here is why.
Mr Trump leads one of the five countries that are the permanent veto-wielders within a multilateral institution that is one of the most dictatorial establishments in the world — the UN.
It is an issue of organisational structure, period.
Only 15 members - among them his US, Britain, China, France and Russia are within the UN’s Security Council, which is one of the institution’s six principal organs charged with the maintenance of international peace and security.
Why should a select few consider themselves the custodians of global peace?
Why should the fate of 180 member nations rest on the decisions of five nations?
We ask, therefore, is the UN in search of global peace or dominance?
If it was genuinely a case of global peace, why are decisions not being made through democratic votes?
President Robert Mugabe is on record saying the UN’s structure is a cause for concern and will continue to brew problems for the whole world if left unresolved.
America and her allies have never made it a secret that they do not like the Zimbabwean leader for daring to question such structures and attempting to conscientise other heads of state.
To them, President Mugabe is a threat in their search for supremacy.
In his address at the Summit on Thursday, President Mugabe reiterated the need for quick reforms on the UN Security Council; challenging the world to invest in peace, not war.
As for Mr Trump, the reincarnation of the biblical Goliath, it cannot always be “America first” all the way.
America is not more equal than Syria, North Korea, Zimbabwe or any other country.
In fact, there can never be any “united states” if there are no united nations.
Any murky water within this United Nations establishment will most likely choke everyone, America included, not just the small fish.
Not even Mr Trump’s “walls” will be able to protect the US from such.
The United Nations General Assembly should be a place where world order is propelled, not chipped into.