United Nations of America?
by Enver Masud ©1991 Enver Masud
October 1991, The Wisdom Fund

The haste with which the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against Iraq, and its actions since the end of this round of fighting in the Gulf, leave little doubt as to who is setting U.N. policy and objectives.

The U.N. actions in the Gulf contrast sharply with U.N. inaction on other long-standing disputes such as those over Cyprus, Kashmir, and Palestine, which have been allowed to fester despite the passage of U.N. resolutions. To an unbiased observer it should be obvious that a double standard is at work where the U.N. and the United States are concerned.

The prostitution of the U.N. to the wishes of one superpower, endangers the very foundation on which the U.N. was conceived. It inspires little confidence in less powerful nations when one sees the worlds nuclear superpowers, which among them have over forty thousand nuclear warheads, rail sactimoniously against weaker nations such as Iraq, India, and Pakistan for even attempting to build a single nuclear warhead.

And nothing is said of the State of Israel, imposed upon the Middle East by the colonial powers of the West, which is the major source of instability in the Middle East. Israel's nuclear arsenal is not even acknowledged, while a Muslim nation is humiliated by the U.S. led U.N. searching for evidence of Iraq's nuclear program.

Of course the U.S. has always had a powerful voice in the U.N. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union the system of checks and balances, without which no organization can function effectively, has also collapsed. The U.N. Security Council has become little more than an extension of the U.S. Department of State.

That may be good for the U.S. in the short run. But in the long run, the transformation of the U.N. into a new United Nations of America may not serve the needs of any nation.

[Politics] [Mainpage] [What's New?]