The United Nations is sixty-two years old, but should have been pensioned off years ago. Those present at the birth were naive in the extreme for thinking that in signing the charter they would come within light years of saving "succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Surely, even an historian such as Simon Sebag Montefiore can appreciate that there have been many more wars since 1945 than he has fingers and toes!Socialists knew at the birth of the UN, or rather its earlier incarnation, the League of Nations, shortly after the 'war to end all wars', that as an agency for bringing peace and prosperity to all it was doomed to failure, because:
"...the 'League' is a mere phantasm, a spineless, parchment entity which can have no power or influence in the real world - the world of strife for economic interests." (Socialist Standard, July 1919)
Fifty years ago we repeated this fact, one which "most politicians, British and foreign, have always been well aware of...But politicians, if they are to keep their jobs, must profess to have an answer. After each world war the working class has looked to its "leaders" for a scheme to prevent the next one. No politician in these circumstances could hope to win votes without some solution to offer..." (Socialist Standard, February 1957)
Just over ten years ago we asked:
"Is it irony, or just plain coincidence, that the world's top five arms suppliers (USA, Britain, France, China and Russia) just happen to be the five permanent members of the UN Security Council? Indeed, does this fact not make a mockery of any pretensions they have of proving the world with 'security'?"
Adding: "Just how secure the world really is can be judged by the fact that there have been over 300 conflicts since the establishment of the UN Security Council after world War Two and that 30 still rage and that more are threatened."
The article concluded:
"Perhaps then, the "Insecurity Council" would be a more fitting title for the UN's five most important members, as "peace" is merely preparation for war under capitalism. Fifty million killed in wars since the foundation of the UN are testament to this." (Socialist Standard, May 1996)
Not until we win the war to end all wars, the class war, we will have the possibility to employ the UN's framework, in a world without nations, to, as the Charter puts it, "...plan together so that everyone would have a fair [self-defined] share of the good things of life."
Not until we win the war to end all wars, the class war, we will have the possibility to employ the UN's framework, in a world without nations, to, as the Charter puts it, "...plan together so that everyone would have a fair [self-defined] share of the good things of life."
RS
2 comments:
If any part of the UN is actually pulling its weight in an effort to achieve this goal, it would have to be the trade divisions (UNCTAD, UNDG, ITC, etc) so frequently bemoaned on this and similar sites. It may not be a perfect solution, but at least it is trying to get enough into the hands of everyone so that they become much more reluctant to go to war.
Thanks for your comment, but where do we moan about UNCTAD, UNDG & ITC? More importantly, the only malnutrition problem the ruling classes in countries where millions die of hunger each year have is obesity! Further, it is these parasites rather than the starving masses who use all the means at their disposal to brainwash the cannon fodder into thinking that the current or next BUSINESS war is really in their interest. No more crumbs, rather a world of free access!
Post a Comment