Following World Conflict I, the League of Nations was established with the noble objective of resolving worldwide disputes peacefully. Nevertheless, it proved ineffective in stopping the outbreak of World Conflict II.
Within the aftermath of World Conflict II, the victorious powers got here collectively to create the United Nations with the first goal of sustaining international peace and safety, filling the void left by the League of Nations’ failures.
However can we genuinely take into account the U.N. venture successful just because now we have not witnessed a 3rd world warfare since its inception?
From the Korean Conflict to the Vietnam Conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian battle to the Cyprus dispute, the Rwandan genocide to the Bosnian Conflict, the Iraq conflicts to the turmoil in Libya, and the continuing warfare in Ukraine, now we have witnessed conflicts, genocides and massacres which have claimed tens of millions of lives. How has the U.N. fared in stopping or mitigating these crises? If one other international battle had been to loom on the horizon, may the U.N. successfully intervene and avert the upcoming disaster?
These questions persist, difficult the U.N.’s capability to stay as much as its potential in stopping human struggling on an enormous scale.
Nearly universally, the reply to all these questions is “no.” Nevertheless, among the many practically 200 international locations, Türkiye stands alone in systematically highlighting the ineffectiveness of the U.N. and its construction, which shields imperial powers, primarily saying “the emperor has no garments.”
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a key determine within the “The World is Greater than 5” marketing campaign, has authored two books on this very challenge.
Now, let’s put apart the 5 everlasting members of the U.N. who name the pictures and have the ultimate say. The present system fits the pursuits of the US, China, Russia, France and the UK, international locations concerned in nearly all international crises.
However the query stays: Why do the remaining 188 international locations settle for this unjust state of affairs? Why do they accept powerless roles resembling non-permanent members of the Safety Council, the place some serve for 2 years and others for one? Are they content material with these meager choices to stave off rise up towards this injustice?
How can they be so sure of their powerlessness?
For example, envision a state of affairs within the coming 12 months the place a boycott leaves the U.N. Safety Council’s 5 everlasting members remoted in New York. On this hypothetical scenario, 188 international locations may put forth the next calls for:
– Abolish everlasting membership and veto mechanisms inside the council to facilitate extra environment friendly decision-making and improve its performance,
– Limit the council’s powers whereas boosting the authority of the Common Meeting to interrupt the monopoly of energy. Moreover, set up a authorized avenue to problem council selections,
– Introduce an approval requirement by the Common Meeting, notably for council selections associated to sanctions or navy interventions.
Do you regard this as merely a fantasy?
In an period the place democracy is universally esteemed as a elementary worth, is it too far-fetched to hope for the dismantling of oligarchy inside the U.N.?
Why is a pluralistic construction for the U.N., guaranteeing equal voices for nations, thought-about a risk to each the group and the world?
What distinguishes China, Russia, the U.S., France or the U.Ok. as extra dependable and rational when in comparison with Iraq, Singapore, Chile or South Africa?
Is it their better energy and assertiveness, their possession of nuclear arsenals, or the truth that their observe data are so marred that they’re incomparable to the opposite 188 nations on Earth?
What do your purpose, logic and conscience say about this “discovered helplessness?”
Persevering with this charade regardless of figuring out that the U.N., unable to determine justice inside itself, can’t make the world a fairer place – what sort of hypocrisy is that?