2008 Woodie Awards
The Trouble with the U.N.
Paul Grealish
Issue date: 9/27/06 Section: Opinion
During the build-up to World War Two, there were many who felt that the League of Nations, the international body founded in 1919 to preserve world peace, had been an utter failure. They were right of course. The League failed miserably to protect Abyssinia from Italian invasion, and did not act during the Spanish Civil War or Hitler's rise to power. The League did little or nothing to prevent the Second World War. It was a failure, and so, according to many today is the United Nations, the body set up to replace the League.
There are a lot of people in the United States who would like to see the UN scrapped, or at the very least have the USA withdraw from an organisation that is deemed flawed, corrupt and a threat to America's sovereignty. One is reminded of a quote from a British diplomat upon the demise of the League of Nations; "The League of Nations has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found inconvenient and not tried." And so it has been with the UN.
The UN was set up to promote co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. Fundamentally it was an organization devised to peace and global co-operation. This was a noble goal. And yet at every turn its most prominent members have failed to live up to their commitments.
International law is a concept rejected by the current US government, and by others in the past. The idea of civilised nations gathering together to promote justice and pursue criminals who are a threat to world peace, law and order seems an appealing one. However, the US withdrew from compulsory adherence to the International Court of Justice in 1986, and rejected the International Criminal Court outright during the Clinton administration. Without US support, there can be no international law.
Peace is the desire of all civilized people across the globe. This may seem true but it doesn't quite match the reality of the situation. The five permanent members of the United Nations security council are the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. World peace depends on these nations. The total amount of armaments sold by these nations each year, in US dollars, is roughly $30billion.
There are a lot of people in the United States who would like to see the UN scrapped, or at the very least have the USA withdraw from an organisation that is deemed flawed, corrupt and a threat to America's sovereignty. One is reminded of a quote from a British diplomat upon the demise of the League of Nations; "The League of Nations has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found inconvenient and not tried." And so it has been with the UN.
The UN was set up to promote co-operation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity. Fundamentally it was an organization devised to peace and global co-operation. This was a noble goal. And yet at every turn its most prominent members have failed to live up to their commitments.
International law is a concept rejected by the current US government, and by others in the past. The idea of civilised nations gathering together to promote justice and pursue criminals who are a threat to world peace, law and order seems an appealing one. However, the US withdrew from compulsory adherence to the International Court of Justice in 1986, and rejected the International Criminal Court outright during the Clinton administration. Without US support, there can be no international law.
Peace is the desire of all civilized people across the globe. This may seem true but it doesn't quite match the reality of the situation. The five permanent members of the United Nations security council are the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. World peace depends on these nations. The total amount of armaments sold by these nations each year, in US dollars, is roughly $30billion.
Be the first to comment on this story