Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
crystal_sword

Un Peace Keepers

Recommended Posts

peace,

 

Lateralus,I suggest you start showing people some respect and stop twisting people's words to suit your ideology. In addition could both you and akhi Crystal_sword not start diverting from the main point of the thread? <----rhetorical question before people start answering it.

 

Thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
peace,

 

Lateralus,I suggest you start showing people some respect and stop twisting people's words to suit your ideology. In addition could both you and akhi Crystal_sword not start diverting from the main point of the thread? <----rhetorical question before people start answering it.

 

Thank you...

If any of you've seen or read much stuff about conflict zones the UN have been "keeping the peace in" you'll know what a disaster this organisation has caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam

 

THE US and the UN - From Understanding Power.

 

Q: Noam, do you see any positive role that the UN can play, for instance sending UN peacekeeping forces to places instead of US intervention forces?

 

Well, the UN can only play a positive role if the great powers let it play a positive role. So where the great powers more or less agree on something and they just need a mechanism to effect it, the UN is useful. But if the great powers are opposed – like, say the United States is opposed to something – okay, then it just doesn’t happen.

 

Q: What about if the UN didn’t have a Security Council, or didn’t give veto power to five permanent Security Council members?

 

It couldn’t happen – because the great powers will not allow and interference with their affairs. Take the Unites States, whish has been by far the leader in vetoing UN Security Council resolutions since the 1970s: if we don’t like what the UN is doing, the UN can go down the tubes – we just ignore them, and that ends the matter. You don’t kid around with an 800 pound gorilla, you know.

 

In fact its quite interesting to race the changes in the US attitude towards the UN over the years. In the late 1940s the United States just ran it completely – international relations of power were such that the US just gave orders and everybody followed, because the rest of the world was smashed up and starving after the Second World War. And at the time everybody loved the UN, because it always went along with us: every way we told the countries to vote, they voted. Actually, when I was a graduate student around the 1950, major social scientists, like Margaret Mead, were trying to explain why the Russians were always saying ‘no’ at the UN – because here was the United States putting through these resolutions and everybody was voting ‘yes, the Russians would stand up and say ‘no’. So of course they went to the experts, the social scientists, to figure it out. And what they came up with was something we used to call ‘diaperology’; the conclusion was, the reason the Russians always say ‘no’ at the UN is because they raise their infants with swaddling clothes [bandages wrapped around newborn babies to restrain or quiet them]. Literally – they raise their infants with swaddling clothes in Russia, so Russians end up very negative, and by the time they make it to the UN all they want to do is say ‘no’ all the time. That was literally proposed, people took it seriously, there were articles in the journals about it, and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, over the years, US power over the UN began to drop – at least relatively speaking. A lot of Third World countries entered the UN, especially since the 1960s as a result of decolonisation, so there was a lot more independence – and the UN just got out of control, we couldn’t order it around anymore. And as that happened, you could trace the US attitude towards the UN getting more and more negative. For instance, they started using this phrase, which I’m sure you’ve heard, ‘the tyranny of the majority’. What’s the tyranny of the majority? Its what known as ‘democracy’ elsewhere, but when we happen to be in the minority, it becomes ‘the tyranny of the majority’. And starting around 1970, the United States began vetoing everything that came up: resolutions on South Africa, israel, on disarmament – you pick it, the Unites States was vetoing it. And the Soviet Union was voting right along with the mainstream. Okay, all of a sudden it turns out that the UN is a total disaster.

 

Ill never forget one article about this in the New York Times Magazine, by their UN correspondent, Richard Bernstein. He went through this whole business about how the entire world votes against the United States all the time. He wasn’t asking, ‘How do they raise American children?’ What he asked was, ‘Why is the world out of step?’ Literally: ‘What’s the matter with the world, it all out of step, it doesn’t understand – what is it with the world?’ Then he began looking for defect in the world. I’m not exaggerating, that’s exactly what it was like – and all of this stuff is done without and self-consciousness, its just said straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the same with the World Court [the popular name for the International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the UN]. When the World Court issued an explicit decision against the United States in June 1986 ordering – ordering – the United Sates to terminate what it called ‘unlawful use of force’ and illegal economic warfare against Nicaragua, we just said to heck with it, we ignored them. The week after, Congress increased US aid to the contras by another hundred million dollars. Against, the commentary across the board in the US – the New York Times, the Washington Post, big international law experts – was unanimous: the World Court has discredited itself by passing this judgment, so obviously we don’t pay attention to it. It just discredits the World Court to criticise the United States – that’s like a truism here. Then right after that, when the UN Security Council called on all States to observe international law – not referring to the United States, but obliquely referring to this World Court decision – and it was vetoed by the United Sates (11 to 1, with 3 abstentions); and when the General Assembly also passed the same resolution, the first time 94 to 3 (israel, El Salvador and the United States) the next time 94 to 2 (israel and the United States) – the press wouldn’t even report it. Well, that’s what it means to be a great power, you do whatever you feel like.

 

And by now, the United States is practically strangling the UN – were by far the biggest debtor nation. In fact, the UN can barely function because the United States wont pay its bills. And parts of the UN that we done like, like UNESCO [The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation] – because its working for the Third World – we practically put them out of business.

 

The United States launched a huge propaganda campaign against UNESCO in the 1970s and Eighties – it was full of outrageous lies, totally fabricated, but nevertheless it sufficed to essentially eliminate the Third World orientation of UNESCO and make it stop using things it as doing around the Third World, like improving literacy and health care and so on. But that’s just the reality of what the UN is going to face when it pursue policies that are not in the interests of the great powers – it can just go down the drain, the United States wont permit it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q But why is that the Press wont report any of these things?

 

Well, its because the press has a job: its job is to keep people from understanding the world, and to keep them indoctrinated. Therefore it wont things like this – and against, that follows pretty logically form the nature of the press institutions themselves. In fact, the was that the US press covers the United Nations votes gives a very good illustration of how it works. So for example, when the UN has a vote denouncing the ongoing Russian invasion of Afghanistan in November 1987, that that put on the front page. But when the UN has a vote in the same sessions, in fact within a few days, calling on all states to observe international law – this very muted resolution after the World Court decision, it didn’t even mention the United States – then they wont put it on the front page, in fact they wont put it anywhere.

 

Or take the summit when the Soviet Union and the United States signed the INF [intermediate range Nuclear Forces] treaty, in December 1987. Right at that time, there was a tremendous amount of media attention focused on arms treaty. Well, the line at the US media constantly presented was, ‘Regan the Peacemaker – you know, ‘Reagan leading us to a new age,’ ‘First arms control treaty [to abolish a class of weapons systems],’ and so on. That was the standard picture across the whole American press. Okay, that very month, the UN General Assembly has passed a series of disarmament resolutions – but if you want to know the details of them, you’ll have to look them up in my book Necessary Illusions, because its about the only place you can find them in print in the United Sates. The General Assembly passed a resolution calling for banning of all weapons in outer space, Star Wars – it went through 154 to 1, the US was the 1. They passed a resolution against the development of new weapons of mass destruction; it was 135 to 1. They passed one calling for a nuclear test freeze; it was 137 to 3, the United States picked up England and France on that one. And so it went.

 

Do you think any of that made the newspapers in the United States? No, because that’s just the wrong story. The story is ‘Reagan the Peacemaker,’ not ‘The United States is alone in the world, isolated in the world in attempting to maintain an arms race.’ – that s not the story. And in fact, when the New York Times did its summary report on what happened at he UN that year, you can bet your life that once of this stuff was included – there wasn’t one word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If any of you've seen or read much stuff about conflict zones the UN have been "keeping the peace in" you'll know what a disaster this organisation has caused.

 

 

Salaam

 

The UN certainly isnt the greatest organisation in the world.  But it has been obstructed by the US a lot in recent years (Basically it wont go along with the US line on issues eg. Iraq war)

 

I trust the UN a lot more than I trust the US when it comes to international affairs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×