Has the UN maintained International Peace and Security?
Posted on June 16th, 2012

Shenali Waduge

A noble endeavor to stop another world war from taking place through the creation of a world body known by us as United Nations has undoubtedly disappointed us all. The UN may claim that there is no world war but it has done pittance to avert or stop mini-wars and in many ways it has contributed towards the suffering of millions of people by allowing its good office to be used for political agendas totally compromising the UN and its objectives. The blunders committed by the UN over the years are long and varied and some of these mistakes continue to plague the UN and accounts for the credibility of its role and questions its relevancy in the modern context.

The UN comprises 193 member states compared with just 51 in 1945. The UN Security Council comprising 5 permanent members (US, France, UK, China and Russia) along with 10 non-permanent members elected every 2 years by the General Assembly are tasked with maintaining peace and security.  In reality these 15 nations decide the fate of the world.

Yet inside the corridors of the UN, all its members whether they belong to the Third World or the First World are “treated” as Equal because they all have just ONE VOTE “”…” or is that an overstatement? More and more we discover that far from equality all that the UN espouses to preach is being flouted inside the UN itself. This is an allegation that needs to be further discussed and explored.

We do not expect the UN to do magic “”…” all people of the world cannot be equal, everyone cannot be rich, everyone cannot eat the same food or enjoy the same comforts but everyone should be entitled to the basic and most fundamental needs and rights and in that respect the UN can really boast any significant changes as revealed in the statistics on poverty, health, housing, education etc. Similarly, if all members are to be treated equally why is it that the UN Security Council always enjoys the last say and also has veto powers, where does that leave the other members and their collective rights?

The UN Charter Preamble reads “The purposes of the United Nations are: To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.”

These are no doubt very noble endeavors yet it is in reading these lines and comparing them against a backdrop of catastrophes that help us to realistically gage if UN has been a success or not. Unfortunately, peace and security is getting more and more elusive by the day.

If the UN is all about “peace and security” who is there to stop all 5 of the UN security council members who may be tied up in battle against one another especially if only they can hold nuclear arms/arsenal? Already it is clear that the US, UK and France are on one side while Russia and China are on the other. All these nations are steadily building up their military might and indulging in all types of nuclear arsenal “”…” these certainly do not help international peace and does not meet the criterion for global security.

The simple logic of the Western nations is that no countries should possess weapons except them. Is the UN agreeable to this logic? So if US, UK, Israel, South Korea can have arms why can’t Iran, North Korea or any other country for that matter?

Now what kind of logic is this when it is the West over the years that have been originating the conflicts that are taking place all over the world? So what has the UN done about it? What can it do realistically “”…” suspend the nation, what would that mean? Or collect armies of several nations and invade to disarm “”…” what would that lead to? Yet this was the principle of R2P which has been used to legitimize foreign nations to invade less powerful ones and now that doctrine is going out of control and no one can stop it.

Just like one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, peace asks the simple question “”…” whose peace are we talking about? Did the US/NATO not have sleep because the people of Libya were suffering under Gaddafi? Did the UN/NATO have sleepless nights because of Saddam or Osama that they had to invade these nations? What is the peace that US/NATO has brought the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya”¦.after the invasions??? Did the US and its allies sleep for 30 years while LTTE terrorism prevailed and suddenly after its elimination wake up to demand “accountability” from the Sri Lankan Government “”…” what about the LTTE, have the world forgotten it is a terrorist organization and its representative/supporters are all carrying out business as usual in these foreign countries?

So the West demands all other nations to “disarm”, to follow “human rights” to engage in “democracy” while it sends covert troops to create anarchy and manipulates international organizations to tie nations into economic enslavement and loan traps that denies these nations from ever coming out of the debacle they have been forced into.

The underlying message is that peace can never be achieved if the roots of war are ignored. The world is supposedly been asked to go on a War against Terror with billions spent on protecting against terror without actually eliminating the roots of terror? We know that can’t be done because the champions against terror are those creating terror!

With the silence of the UN as powerful nations carry out neo-colonial policies funded by powerful banking elites we begin to realize that it’s not about terrorists it’s about territories “¦and these powerful countries are only after securing the natural resources and geographical focal points that would ensure their safety and security. The rights of the world’s citizens do not matter in the least.  

This is why we ask the UN what has it done about the enormous injustices that have taken place one after the other? Was it in a position to stop but couldn’t? What exactly did the UN do to overcome these atrocities”¦.Genocide in Rwanda, deaths in Iraq by sanctions and by UN/NATO bombing, unmanned US drone deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan”¦all taking place under the excuse of “humanitarian intervention” dealing a blow to Article 2.7 of the UN Charter that upholds the rights of member states for domestic jurisdiction.

We have witnessed such military intervention in Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, East Timor, Libya and none of these have given any improvement to the lives of the people as promised. Agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency has been utilized to issue damning reports condemning countries which have served to facilitate sanctions upon nations without proof.  Resolution 1706 with its use of “all necessary means” has become a good excuse to arm rebels in Libya and now in Syria by US and its allies completely ignoring the domestic rights of these countries who have not shown any aggression. The same excuse was used in 2006 to deploy UN peace troops in Darfur Sudan again on the excuse to “protect civilians”.

The Gulf equals oil and the quest to secure and control the oil is the name of the game. The UN as a completely unbiased body tasked to maintain international peace and security needs to explain its justification for the use of military force in Iraq which has kickstarted a new model for the use of military force and intervention to take place. That today has been more or less artfully accepted and documented in what we know as “responsibility to protect”. Using the excuse of protecting civilians powerful nations are now invading countries while UN is helpless since it endorsed R2P.  Over the years the disproportionate authority exercised by the US over decision-making and implementation has contributed to the UN losing its credibility. For this only the UN has itself to blame.

With this subversion arises weaknesses within the UN system. UN is now reduced to a passive bystander and its officials either taking part in the global manipulations taking place or simply doing their job only. The commitment for peace is not part of anyone’s vision or mission unfortunately.

Failures within the UN

UN has become an organization that is corrupt, mismanaged and lacks accountability. Its budget is shrouded in secrecy, the performance outcomes of its specialized agencies are vague and one wonders whether there is conflict of interest in every area they branch out its activities! If the world body is accountable to all its member states why is the UN unwilling to go through audits and questions raised by its members? There are over 50,000 employed in the UN and a large number of “consultants” which has become an abused practice. The personnel costs of the UN contribute 70% of the funding it receives and the UN pension scheme is what makes anyone desire to belong to the UN!  What about the quality of the staff, with no proper records of personnel one can imagine why UN is in such a disarray confirmed by those who opted out of the system on the grounds of UN not practicing work ethics it preaches. The food-for-oil program is just one of the major frauds that have taken place within the UN where even its top executives hold accountability.

For speaking against UN peace keepers trafficking Eastern European women into sexual slavery in Bosnia, Madeleine Rees, was dismissed from her job at the UN office of the High Commission for Human Rights in March 2010. Her stand on the issue of sex slaves resulted in her transfer to Geneva in 2006 to head the UN Women’s Rights and Gender Unit division but she clashed with Navi Pillay the UN High Commissioner for Human rights before she was out of a job with the UN altogether. Her story has even inspired the film “”…” “The Whistleblower” though UN officials claimed her dismissal had nothing to do with her role in Bosnia. There are plenty more scandals that has embarrassed the UN over the years.

The UNSGs over the years have had their share of conflicts of interests. Former Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali is said to have played a key role in supplying weapons (disguised as relief material) to Hutu regime (through a $26million arms deal in 1990) which carried out the Rwanda genocide in 1994 against the Tutsis as disclosed in a book by Linda Melvern. Boutros-Ghalis’ contacts with Hutus were never investigated. Kofi Annans son was involved in the $9billion oil-for-food scandal. Annan is now brokering peace in Syria! Kurt Waldheim a former Secretary General was also a Nazi.

What the UN has done is to distance nations from respecting international laws, and watched nations use the tool of ideology to take unilateral or arbitrary use of force.

Needless to say international law has been a rhetorical convenience for the US/its allies and it has used the UN to legitimize and provide legal cover for its actions. In such a situation can the world really turn to the UN for meaningful solutions when permanent members end up taking actions to secure their own interests only?

What can the UN really do to maintain peace and security? If it can’t do anything what is the point in spending billions on an international organization and utilizing resources towards meetings and conferences that are nothing more than an official photograph and a diplomatic handshake with an official statement released simply for courtesy!

If every nation/its citizens individually decide to uphold international and individuals laws, respects rights as well as duties the world doesn’t really need permanent or non-permanent members who know very little about the ground situation in countries and rely only on the dossiers prepared by their “advisors” or “consultants”. In 62 years, when it cannot put its own house in order perhaps the best thing UN should first start doing is to count the number of civilians that have died simply because it could do nothing against the aggressors “”…” the terrorists of the world created by these world powers!



11 Responses to “Has the UN maintained International Peace and Security?”

  1. JehanS Says:

    How would abolishing the UN do anything? countries will still have their petty agendas. Maybe the UN has failed to prevent some smaller conflicts. But I tell you this, if there is another world war, we might go extinct. Better little proxy wars than another major war .. mankind will simply not survive. Have you already forgotten what devastation nuclear weapons can bring?

  2. AnuD Says:

    I don’t think UN ever achieved or did what UN was supposed to once it was created after the WW-II. US, at one point, was not giving it’s due share for UN and UN was suffering because of the lack funds to operate. Then when the next time UN began to work it had become US.

    I think the last Buddhist – Chair person of the UN was Bermese U-Thant. HE died in a plane crash. I don’t know why. Since then, even if Asia gets a change,like this time, the chair person is a Christian as Ban-Ki Moon is.

  3. AnuD Says:

    I think long long ago, UN lost it’s relevance. Recently, I heard, china and Russia left UNHRC because US is using it as a political entity. For example, there are how many resolutions against Israel ?. How many times, US has used it’s Vito power. Recently, In order to get rid of Gadhaffi, US fooled both Russia and China.

    Only thing is the availability of UN may have slowed down the action of bullying States who wants to behave as “thugs”. It is like if all the police go on vacation or strike crimes go up suddenly. That happens even though police doe snot do much even when they are not on strike..

  4. Nalliah Thayabharan Says:

    The origins of the UN can be found in the financing of the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist banking families, the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warbugs, Lazards and Oppenheimers, who have financed strife on this earth for centuries. The UN was created to justify the existence of the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist entity as a legitimate nation-state, to put a shroud on its hideous supremacist character; this rings true with the fact that the Security Council never even ratified the resolution which proposed the legitimacy of a Jewish ‘state’ in Palestine. Despite this, and despite the illegal Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist colonization of Palestine financed by the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist Rothschild family since the 1880s and the horrible Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist atrocities of the Nakba in 1948, still the UN recognized this fabricated regime, still gave it a name and a seat. Why? Because its godfathers, the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist bankers, wanted it that way. The UN is a tool of international Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist power.

    In 1948, the Rothschilds bribe US President Harry S. Truman to recognise Israel (Rothschild owned Zionist not Jewish territory) as a sovereign state with $2,000,000 which they give to him on his campaign train.

    They then declare Israel to be a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine and within half an hour President Truman declared the United States to be the first foreign nation to recognise it.

    In December 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews urged us “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” They warned that a “Leader State” was the goal of the “terrorist party” that has governed Israel over all but a handful of the past 62 years.

    The same UN that introduced Resolution 661 to Iraq, the treacherous ‘sanctions resolution,’ which crippled Iraq, prepared it for the Illuminati Ashkenazi Khazar Zionist invasion of 2003 and murdered over 2 million people by starvation including 800,000 Iraqi children. The same UN that paved the way for the mutilation of Libya, in which at least 100,000 have been mass murdered by NATO and its Israeli-advised rebel thugs. The same UN that now seeks to turn Syria into another Iraq or Libya.

  5. Susantha Wijesinghe Says:

    This has reference to your 8th para. I was wondering why countries loaded with Nuclear Weapons to finish off the world within hours, are not in favour of other countries manufacturing and having a nuclear arsenal. The irony is that countries not involved in this issue are victimised with sanctions that hurt the economy. No country can even be a friend with a country that is involved in nuclear enrichment for civilian purposes.

  6. May182009 Says:

    Israel takes a great bold move to expel illegal immigrants.

    A very good lesson for Sri Lanka to follow.


    “Some residents of southern Tel Aviv neighborhoods, where there is a large concentration of Africans, have blamed their new neighbors for increasing crime and suffocating the infrastructure and public services. Some also complain the illegal immigration is changing the fabric of Israel.”

  7. JehanS Says:

    Why do races need a homeland? Can I form a new race and claim a homeland? Why can’t multiple races share a homeland, multiple families can share a village .. can’t they?

  8. Lorenzo Says:



    Tell them to ACCEPT the national army OR GET OUT (preferred option).

  9. Lorenzo Says:

    SL has ALWAYS been the traditional homeland of Sinhalese and that’s how it should ALWAYS remain.

    Tamil homeland is TAMIL NADU.

    Muslim homeland is Saudi.

    Stateless fools in the Tamil Diarrhoea cry for fake homelands.

  10. JehanS Says:

    Lorenzo what if a person is mixed sinhalese and tamil? He has two homelands then? Sri Lanka is the homeland of the sinhalese, muslims, tamils, burghers, veddahs, and whoever else has been living there for generations and is settled there.

    Racism is bad for your mental health.

  11. Lorenzo Says:

    Claiming the RIGHT homeland is not racism. It is a RIGHT practised and enjoyed by MOST PEOPLE around the world.

    “what if a person is mixed sinhalese and tamil? He has two homelands then?”

    Yes. He/she can choose.

    Tamil homeland is Tamil Nadu.
    Muslims homeland is Saudi.
    Vedda homeland is SL.

    “Sri Lanka is the homeland of the sinhalese, muslims, tamils, burghers, veddahs, and whoever else has been living there for generations and is settled there.”

    Yes; ONLY those who accept UNITARY SL with its 2009 military triumph. Not otherwise.

    SL has ALWAYS been the traditional homeland of Sinhalese and that’s how it should ALWAYS remain. Others can live in as they live in England (traditional homeland of the English), Russia (traditional homeland of the Russians), France (traditional homeland of the French), etc. No problem.

    But if they make homeland claims, we HAVE TO point them to the RIGHT direction where they have MASSIVE homelands across the sea.

    Denying the Sinhala nation (the correct name of SL) to the Sinhala people is an old “kallathoni” racist trick.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2020 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress