UN cre­ated to cause wars?

The Sunday Mail (Zimbabwe) - - COMMENT -

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.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Zimbabwe

© PressReader. All rights reserved.