Liberator 2.1
The United Nations: Our Last Hope?
words: Kwasi Clark
 

Is the United Nations our last hope for world peace? Is it capable of doing the things that have been set out in its charter? The debate that rages within the halls of the UN and within the private chambers of the security council over weapons inspections and proposed military action against the current regime in Iraq could provide the crucial answer to the question of whether or not the UN is still relevant as an institution designed to (according to its charter), “establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.”

On October 16, 2002, the non-aligned movement of nations, led by South Africa, held a rare open session to allow member states to voice their opinions on the U.S. led war in Iraq. To the astonishment of many, the speakers, representing 130 sovereign nations, advocated for a peaceful solution to the Iraq issue and spoke against the use of military action in Iraq. Despite this historical occurrence, Washington’s war rhetoric has not substantially toned down and the United States has told the world that it will lead a military coalition of nations into Iraq with or without UN support.

For many the drama unfolding in the United Nations is just another long and drawn out political dispute. However, for those concerned with the history of world affairs and international law, both the United Nations and the current challenge it is facing, are receiving careful attention. Although it may seem at times that the United Nations is simply a tool for carrying out the will of the five permanent members of the Security Council, an examination of the plain language of UN Charter would seem to show that the framers of the UN charter had a very different idea in mind when the charter was adopted. It is important that we pause for a moment and remember the role of the UN and its reason for coming to being in order to fully realize the magnitude of the events that are currently unfolding before our eyes with regards to this organization that is without parallel in the annals of human history.

The preamble, (which according to Blacks Law Dictionary is the part of a constitution or statute that provides an explanation of the reasons for its enactment and the objectives sought to be accomplished), of the United Nations charter gives us a glimpse into the minds of the framers and states in part that,

“We the peoples of the United Nations Determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”

The preamble goes on to say that the member states of the United Nations must

...live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, that by the acceptance of principles and the institutions of methods, that armed force shall not be used [bold and italics added], save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

As is evident by the plain language used in the preamble, the vision for the United Nations was not an advisory body to the Security Council, but a fully functional international community of nations with the main objective of maintaining international peace for the common interest of nations. This naturally precludes any unilateral action by any member state, with the exception being cases of self-defense against an imminent danger.

The United Nations is the world organization that succeeded to the mantle discarded by its discredited predecessor, the League of Nations. Similar to UN charter, the League of Nations covenant was full of provisions calling for collective security and the peaceable settlement of disputes. It also provided that signatories to the covenant would come together to help any member nation threatened with aggression from another nation. However, when it came time for the words written in the charter to take on life and for the principles to be defended, the League fell short and thought it better to appease a dominant member state at the expense of a smaller and virtually defenseless member state.

It could be argued that a Security Council resolution authorizing U.S. military force in opposition to the voice of 130 member nations would be a result of the United Nations bowing to pressure from the U.S. and amount to the United Nations making the same mistake as the League. In light of the October, 16 session, a Security Council resolution authorizing military action in Iraq could certainly not be seen as representing the common interest as stated in the preamble of the UN charter.

The beginning of the end for the League of Nations was its support of Italy’s colonial expansion under the leadership of Mussolini who had announced his plan to the world to go on a “civilizing” mission in Ethiopia. This was despite the fact that Italy had signed peace agreements with Ethiopia and Ethiopia (the first and only sovereign African nation member state of the League of Nations) was a fellow member state of the League and thus eligible for protection under the terms of the covenant. Furthermore, as a result of a League of Nations imposed weapons embargo against Italy and Ethiopia, Ethiopia was left without the adequate means to defend itself, while Italy who had long manufactured its own weapons was left with a decided advantage.

On June 30, 1936, in Geneva, His Imperial Majesty Emperor Haile Selassie I (An honorary Howard University alumni who received his honorary doctorate of laws in 1954), who had personally fought on the battlefield at the head of his armies against the Italians and who was the first head of state to address the League of Nations general assembly, spoke of the atrocities being committed upon his defenseless people by the Italians who had resorted to the wide scale use of poison gas in violation of international law. The nations present (America was not one of them as president Woodrow Wilson could not find the support in Congress for joining the League, although America did supply Italy with oil for its war operations), refused to lift a finger to help Ethiopia for fear of upsetting the Italian fascists who they feared might align themselves with Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Undeterred, Selassie uttered the now famous prophetic statements of doom to the League’s members “God and History will remember your judgment” and “the match has been lit in Ethiopia, but the fire will burn Europe.”

Despite this warning and in attempt to add insult to injury, on July 4, 1936, five days after Selassie’s famous appeal, the League of Nations voted to call sanctions it had previously imposed on Italy.

The League of Nations failure to stop Italy’s unilateral act of aggression in Ethiopia in 1935, gave Hitler the green light to begin his conquest, as it was a sign to the world that the league was to choose appeasement rather than the enforcement of the principles espoused in the League’s covenant.

In 1941 when Ethiopia was finally liberated by allied forces led by Emperor Selassie, the rest of Europe was engulfed in war and thus Emperor Selassie’s prophetic statements were realized. The war had begun in Ethiopia and was now burning Europe. As a result of the war, Europe was nearly completely destroyed by the heavy bombing and was rebuilt only through a massive infusion of capital provided by the United States. This rebuilding of Europe, coupled with the fact that none of the major fighting had occurred on U.S. soil are some of the factors that catapulted the U.S., as never before, to the forefront of world politics as the world’s foremost super power following the second world war.

By 1948, when the United Nations came into being, God and history had indeed rendered judgment to the League of Nations as it ceased to exist and had already begun to fade into the pages of history as a failed attempt of international justice. The United States emergence on the world scene as the new super power meant that the new organization that was to replace the League of Nations was founded, on U.S. soil. This organization was the United Nations. The signing of the charter took place in 1945 in San Francisco and was attended by many nations, it was later decided that the permanent headquarters for organization would be in New York.

In his address on October 6, 1963, to the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, Emperor Selassie informed the member states in attendance that, “When I spoke at Geneva in 1936, there was no precedent for a head of state addressing the League of Nations. I am neither the first, nor will I be the last head of state to address the United Nations, but only I have addressed both the League and the [United Nations] in this capacity.” In this speech (later made famous by singer Bob Marley in the song “War”) Emperor Selassie went on to warn the member states of the UN not to make the same mistake as the League of Nations. He explained the utility of the UN stating, “The United Nations continues to serve as the forum where nations whose interests clash may lay their cases before world opinion. It provides the essential escape valve without which the slow build-up of pressures would have long since resulted in catastrophic explosion.” The catastrophic explosion Selassie referred to is exactly what the world is facing if the war in Iraq does not go how the U.S. plans and instead provides the fire to ignite an already volatile region. However, if nations whose interests clash lay their cases before world opinion and then choose to ignore the voice of that world opinion and pursue their own course of action, the UN is hindered from doing what it was designed to do. This is especially the case when the voices of the world are calling for a peaceful solution.

On June 30 1936, Ethiopia and Haile Selassie stood as the sole voice of reason before a council of western nations bent on appeasing an aggressive world power threatening to wage war in violation of international law. On October 16, 2002, 130 nations of the world stood as that same voice of reason, this time speaking in opposition of a superpower again threatening to wage war in violation of international law. In 1936, the League of Nations refused to heed Haile Selassie’s voice of reason and instead chose to give Italy the green light to undertake its unilateral mission of “civilizing” the world’s oldest Christian Empire. The end result was the unchecked aggression that led to world war II and untold devastation and suffering. Today the stakes are no less high. Even the most moderate of political analysts are hard pressed not to agree that in the worst-case scenario the war in Iraq could set off a worldwide conflict. All this considered; peaceful resolution does not seem to be an option to the American government at this time. Although it might be considered a stretch to compare American foreign policy to Italian fascism or Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime to a developing and non-aggressive Ethiopia, the principles involved in the two instances are essentially the same and the outcome as potentially dangerous. Both situations involve a world body of nations charged with the task of stopping a conflict between two of its member states. Both also involve one state, the more powerful of the two, taking the role of aggressor and threatening to attack the other despite the world opinion or possible consequences. Finally, in the outcome of both situations, the decisions of the international organization involved will play a major role in how the situation is resolved.

Tensions in the Middle East, tensions between westerners and Muslims as well as the unresolved situation in Afghanistan have all contributed to a negative image of America to Arab nations and it is likely that if Iraq is invaded it will cause massive protest and unrest in the region. Add to this the possibility of Saddam Hussein attacking Israel (his government has recently stated that if attacked, Iraq will defend itself to the fullest of its capacities against America and America’s allies in the region) and the possibility of Israel's retaliation (something it did not do during the Gulf war despite Saddam Hussein’s repeated scud missile attacks on Israeli targets), and the ingredients to a World-wide conflict are in the making. These facts do not excuse any horrors committed by Saddam Hussein’s regime, however, in a world that has seen so much blood shed it is hard to see how another war won’t just make things worst. It is time for governments to find alternatives to war and to use all of those think tanks and taxpayer dollars to come up with peaceful solutions to the world’s problems. This is the vision of the United Nations. It is only when this is done that organizations such as the UN will be able to maintain their relevance and fulfill the goals in their charter. As long as military force is seen as a substitute for proper and effective dispute resolution history will continue to repeat itself and we will have to continue to recycle international institutions.

As Emperor Selassie explained to the nations gathered in New York, it is important for the nations of the world to realize that “There is no single magic formula, no one simple step, no words, whether written into the organizations Charter or into a treaty between states, which can automatically guarantee [peace]. Peace is a day-to-day problem, the product of a multitude of events and judgments. Peace is not an 'is,' it is a becoming.” It is time for the U.S to learn from history, listen to Emperor Selassie, and use its power and influence to work for peace instead of war.