The end of the United Nations

Never like now has the current set-up of the UN appeared obsolete and unrealistic. The dream of peace is gone; the five permanent members of the Security Council only do damage control. In spite of the highest than ever number of peace-keeping missions and others the conflict spread all over and the real crisis remain unresolved.

How can one trust a peace-keeping Department headed by a representative of a Permanent Member of the Security Council with the right of veto: France (the results of cows’ trade between France and Kofi Annan for him to be elected)?

How can you trust China blocking any resolution on Darfur or Zimbabwe while helping their dictators? Or supporting North Korea and Burma?

How can you trust the USA who lie in front of the world and invade a country on that basis? Or the USA, with the UK and France nodding gently, attacking Iran for its nuclear policy and keeping silent with Israel that has the bomb? Or pretending that Iran sticks to UN resolutions but letting Israel breaching all the resolutions on occupied territories?

How can you trust Russia that invades Georgia and blocks resolutions on Zimbabwe on the excuse that it is an internal matter?

How can you trust France whose President before being elected promised to be inflexible on human rights ad then goes to Beijing?

How can you trust the UK without a foreign policy since years and years, being a simple follower of the USA?

And why would Russia invading Georgia be worse that the USA who fomented coups d’état all over Latin America up to the infamous Condor plan and invaded Iraq?

And how could you trust NATO, i.e. the USA, UK and France with the rest following incapable of winning a war in Afghanistan?

Not to talk about all Africa leaders who readily support the worst dictators afraid of becoming themselves in the future a target for their corrupt policies?

The United Nations is now incapable of maintaining peace blocked by the five Permanent Members of the Security Council pursuing their own national interests against the charter of the UN. If ever there had been any doubt until recently, the problems in Georgia have demonstrated that the system is definitely broken and that the Secretary-General, a weak person chose probably because of his weakness.

The United Nations system is also incapable of dealing with economic crisis, in particular the looming food crisis generated to a large extent, but not only, by protectionist policies in the USA and Europe and by the policies imposed for years and years by the World Bank and the IMF. All what it can do is to send rescuers and food supplies: charity instead of self reliance policies.

Clearly there is no United Nations. I saw how it works, directly, through more than 30 years in the system of which 11 in New York : the main countries making their own interests using almost corruptive policies with the little and poor countries who all have one vote at he General Assembly but few diplomats who cannot follow all what happens and in a sense “sell” their votes or leave junior diplomats pursuing their own interests, in particular in the Fifth Committee, the budgetary and administrative one, in the absence of national policies.

The Security Council set-up does not make any sense any

Longer: this is known since years but of course the five permanent members do not agree on any reform too attached to their obsolete privileges. France and the UK have neither reason nor right any longer to have a permanent seat: Europe should have it and the fifth could go to India or Brazil for example: and the veto rule must be suppressed.

But who will take the risk of destroying the UN? Only a strong Secretary General posing the real problems can do it. Although if it continues like that, the UN system may implode thanks to the blinded policies of the USA, Russia and China who will be taken themselves by surprise. The UN is a political animal, but poor blinded politicians kill it.

Time for a change and it ay come only through a major major world crisis: dark times ahead for the world.

Photo www.britannica.com