1991 Awake article on favorable writings on the UN--Your input

I have to admit that I tend to ignore this topic. But there are several comprehehsive sites that I have bookmarked.

http://www.randytv.com/secret/unitednations.htm

http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040320/JWANDSOCIETY8/308080026

This might be what you are talking about.

http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040320/JWANDSOCIETY8/110030005

***

g91 9/8 pp. 3-4 What Is Happening at the United Nations?

SOMETHING is happening at the United Nations. Startling developments are taking place that are going to affect your future. World leaders are very optimistic about them. Consider their words:

"Forty five years after its birth, after being long paralyzed, the [United Nations] is unfolding itself before our eyes, and is now emerging as a true judge, setting forth the law and endeavouring to enforce it."?President François Mitterrand of France to the 45th session of the UN General Assembly, September 24, 1990.

At this same meeting, former Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs Eduard Shevardnadze observed that "one cannot help being satisfied at the unprecedented unity of the [UN] Security Council . . . The positions taken by members of [the United Nations] Organization give the Security Council the mandate to go as far as the interests of world peace will require."

A few days later, President George Bush of the United States addressed the UN General Assembly. The changes he saw inspired him to say: "Not since 1945 have we seen the real possibility of using the United Nations as it was designed?as a center for international collective security." He said this because "the United Nations reacted with such historic unity and resolve" to the Persian Gulf crisis. "For the first time, the U.N. Security Council is beginning to work as it was designed to work." He also said: "The United Nations can help bring about a new day" if its members ?leave terrible weapons behind.? By doing this, they can complete the "historic movement towards a new world order and a long era of peace."

Mr. Guido de Marco, president of the General Assembly of the United Nations, shared this optimism. He proclaimed glowingly: "The dawn of a new system based on friendship and cooperation between the major powers is on the horizon. . . . These developments have revitalized the United Nations Organisation." He said that "the role of the General Assembly as the focal point of international discussion and deliberation, has been reaffirmed in an impressive manner." Because of this, he further stated: "The world no longer lives in the shadow of a possible Armageddon sparked by ideological competition."

What were "these developments" that catapulted the United Nations into this long-hoped-for position of prestige and influence? What sparked such optimism that prompted world leaders to speak hopefully of "a new world order and a long era of peace" free from the risk of a nuclear Armageddon?

What

Brought the Change?

"The ending of the cold war [in Europe]," answered UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar in his 1990 report on the work of the United Nations. For decades that tense situation "bred chronic suspicion and fear and polarized the world." He noted that the "concept of security [that] has begun to emerge is precisely the one the United Nations has been expounding all through the years."

Yes, it seemed that the nations were finally learning, the secretary-general said, that "an obsession with military security results in a self-perpetuating arms race, . . . constrains political dialogue, . . . and aggravates the sense of insecurity in all nations." And what did this new attitude produce?

A spirit of warm cooperation and mutual trust began pervading the summit meetings of the superpowers. As this spirit developed, they no longer felt the need for the same level of heavily armed military forces to serve as deterrents in strategic locations in Europe. The Berlin Wall came down. Germany was united. A number of Eastern European countries set up new governments, giving their citizens freedoms they had never enjoyed before. Closed borders were opened to tourism, cultural exchanges, commerce, and trade. And to top it all off, the Soviet Union and the United States began praising the United Nations and trumpeting the need to use it as a viable force in the world?s quest for peace and security.

Keeping

a Realistic View

Were you surprised by these sudden changes? Did you begin to think that, at last, peace and security are on the horizon and that the United Nations is going to play a key role in achieving such aims? In view of what has happened, the optimism is understandable. However, wisdom and history dictate that we keep a realistic view of this possibility.

Note what Mr. Pérez de Cuéllar said in his report: "Twice in this century, after two devastating wars, the possibilities of building a peaceful global order were not fully realized." President Bush used almost the same words in his address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 6, 1991. "Twice before in this century, an entire world was convulsed by war. Twice this century, out of the horrors of war hope emerged for enduring peace. Twice before, those hopes proved to be a distant dream, beyond the grasp of man."

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker was more specific when he was addressing the UN Security Council. In calling for a UN resolution on using force in the Persian Gulf, he reminded his colleagues that the 1936 Ethiopian "appeal to the League of Nations fell ultimately upon deaf ears. The League?s efforts to redress aggression failed and international disorder and war ensued." Mr. Baker then pleaded: "We must not let the United Nations go the way of the League of Nations."

What was the League of Nations? Why was it organized? Why did it fail? The answers to these questions will enable us to appreciate the changes happening at the United Nations.

***

g91 9/8 pp. 5-7 Why the Need for a League Arose ***

Why

the Need for a League Arose

WORLD WAR I was a four-year holocaust of death and devastation, the likes of which had never before been seen. Split into two opposing alliances, all the great powers of the world, and others, marched off to battle, each side confident of victory, encouraged by the hurrahs of deluded populations that thought war a glorious adventure.

But within a few months, the world learned only too bitterly the terrible price of war. And when it ended, the carnage, the wanton waste of lives and materials, left the world reeling under a gigantic war debt. Something had to be done to prevent such a conflict from breaking out again. Why not an arrangement through which the nations could resolve their disputes peacefully rather than militarily? A new idea? Not really.

Why Previous Efforts Failed

Before World War I, a court had been set up to try to resolve disputes peacefully. It was the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in the Netherlands. In the early 1900?s, many people were hoping that it might become a center where mediation would replace war. But what happened at the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907 that led to the establishment of this court, popularly called the Hague Court?

At both meetings the nations represented would not agree to submit to compulsory arbitration, nor would they limit or reduce their stockpiles of armaments. In fact, they rejected any proposal for disarmament and blocked any plan that would obligate them to settle their differences by mediation.

Thus, when the Hague Court finally began functioning, the nations had seen to it that it did not limit their complete independence. How? By a simple expedient: They made optional the bringing of a case before the judges. And countries that did take their quarrels to this court were not obligated to abide by any of the decisions it handed down.

However, this wary shielding of national sovereignty was jeopardizing the peace and security of the world. So the arms race ran on unchecked until it finally flung mankind headlong into the salvos that shattered the world?s peace in the summer of 1914.

It is ironic that as the last minutes of peace were ticking away, Serbia, in her reply to an Austrian ultimatum, expressed her willingness "to accept a peaceful agreement, by referring this question . . . to the decision of the International Tribunal of the Hague." But since the use of the Hague Court was optional, Austria did not feel compelled to accept this potential "peaceful agreement." So war was declared to keep the peace?and over 20 million civilian and military corpses paid for it!

Clergy Call for League

In May 1919, Episcopal bishop Chauncey M. Brewster declared at a diocesan convention in the United States that "the world?s hope of a righteous and abiding peace lies in the reconstitution of the law of nations in a new authority. . . . International law must be invested with an authority more binding than the conclusions of the Hague Conference [which set up the Hague Court]. The co-operation of the nations, therefore, must be in some association together having the characteristics of a covenant or league."

Roman Catholic cardinal Mercier of Belgium was of the same opinion. "It seems to me," he said in an interview in March 1919, "that the chief duty of Governments toward the future generation is to render impossible a renewal of the crimes from which the world still bleeds." He called the negotiators of the Versailles peace treaty "reconstructors of the new world" and encouraged the formation of a league of nations to achieve this goal. He hoped that this league would become a perfect preserver of peace.

The front page of The New York Times of January 2, 1919, ran the following headline: "Pope Hopes for Foundation of League of Nations." Its first paragraph announced: "In a New Year?s message to America, . . . Pope Benedict expressed the hope that the Peace Conference might result in a new world order, with a League of Nations." The pope did not use the actual phrase "new world order" in his message. However, the hopes he expressed for the League were so grandiose that either the Associated Press or the Vatican Press Office apparently thought the phrase an appropriate one.

Consider these hopes in the context of their times. Beleaguered mankind was crying out for an end to war. Too many wars in too many centuries had taken their terrible toll. And now the greatest of them all had finally ended. To a world yearning desperately for hope, the pope?s words rang out: "May there be born that League of Nations which, by abolishing conscription, will reduce armaments; which, by establishing international tribunals, will eliminate or settle disputes, which, placing peace upon a foundation of solid rock, will guarantee to everyone independence and equality of rights." If the League of Nations could accomplish all of that, it would indeed create a "new world order."

Why It Failed

On paper the aims and methods of the League sounded so beautiful, so practical, so workable. The Covenant of the League of Nations stated that its purpose was to "promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security." Achieving peace and security depended on the nations? cooperating with one another and on their "acceptance of obligations not to resort to war."

Thus, if a critical dispute arose, the member nations involved, having pledged themselves to keep the peace, were to submit their case "to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by the Council" of the League. In addition, the League of Nations had incorporated the Permanent Court of Arbitration, in The Hague, into its peacekeeping system. Surely, it was thought, all of this would eliminate the risk of another great war. But it did not.

According to some historians, one reason why the League did not succeed as a peacekeeper was the failure of many of its "members to recognize the price that had to be paid for peace." Limiting armaments was an important part of this price. But the nations would pay no such price. So history repeated itself?with a vengeance. The nations once again began an arms race. The League could not convince the nations to cooperate in stopping it. All appeals and arguments fell on deaf ears. The nations forgot a great lesson of 1914: Huge arsenals tend to create a smug sense of military superiority.

Having to recognize the value of "collective security" was another vital part of the price of peace. An attack on one nation was to be viewed as an attack on all. But what actually happened when one of them resorted to aggression rather than negotiation? Instead of working unitedly to stop the conflict, the nations divided themselves into various alliances, seeking mutual protection. That was the same delusion that had sucked them into the 1914 whirlpool!

The League was also weakened by the refusal of the United States to join. Many think that it was "the one great power that had the means to make it effective" and that America?s presence in the League might have given it the degree of universality so vital to its success.

But there were other reasons why the League failed. Consider this negative clause at the beginning of its Covenant: "Any Member of the League may, after two years? notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League." (Article 1(3)) This option, however well meant, gave the League no sense of stability, and this, in turn, eroded the nations? resolve to stick loyally to it.

This open door of withdrawal put the League?s life at the mercy of its members, who could quit whenever they wished. The parts became more important than the whole. And so, by the time May 1941 rolled around, 17 nations were no longer in the League. The big guns of World War II were shattering the hope for a "new world order" and causing the League to collapse.

There had to be a better way!

[Blurb on page 7]

The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II

[Picture on page 7]

Cassino, Italy, under bombardment, March 15, 1944

[Credit Line]

U.S. Army

*** g91 9/8 pp. 8-10 The United Nations?A Better Way? ***

The United Nations?A Better Way?

THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: "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 [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims."

Did the UN "accomplish these aims"? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to "maintain international peace and security."

Not the Better Way Yet

Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact?the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.

Article 2(7) decrees: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state." UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary "to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations."

Did you notice that qualifying phrase, "under prevalent world conditions"? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed "as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate."

The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain "international peace and security" expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: "All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to "settle their international disputes by peaceful means," nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ?matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.??Article 2(3,7).

Not only have nations ignored UN peace procedures but they have flouted and openly defied its rulings for settling conflicts. And their statesmen have frequently mounted the UN rostrum and delivered long speeches trying to justify their acts of aggression. This skirting of rules that were enacted to maintain peace has all too often paralyzed the UN at critical times and has severely damaged its credibility. UN officials who sit through such sessions are often frustrated. In the end, such talk usually proves to be mere sophistry that attempts to minimize or justify the violence and bloodshed taking place. No wonder UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar said that the UN "was regarded in some circles as a tower of Babel and at best a venue for often fruitless diplomatic parleys."

There is another reason why the UN has had difficulty proving itself to be that better way. When it began functioning on October 24, 1945, "no coherent strategy of peace was put in place," observed Pérez de Cuéllar. Without this, how could the United Nations become the viable force for securing world peace that it was intended to be?

What Kind of Peace Could It Achieve?

Pérez de Cuéllar answers: "Peace will not bring the cessation of all conflict. It will only make conflicts manageable through means other than force or intimidation. . . . The United Nations seeks to train our vision towards that end." So the only peace that the UN can achieve is control of violence.

Is this really peace with security? True, "membership in the United Nations is open to all . . . peace-loving states." (Article 4(1)) But will a nation that is peace-loving when it joins the UN stay that way? Governments change, and new rulers bring in new policies. What if a member turns radical, with extreme nationalistic aims and covetous territorial ambitions? And what if it begins arming itself with nuclear and chemical weapons? The United Nations would now have a ticking time bomb on its hands. Yet, as recent events in the Middle East show, such a turn of events may be the very thing to move the nations to empower the UN to remove this threat to their security.

Can the Nations Make It a Better Way?

As never before, the nations are becoming increasingly aware of what UNCIO called "the factual interdependence of the world." No state can live unto itself anymore. The nations are all members of one international community. All are contending with a series of common problems: the devastating effects of ecological pollution, poverty, debilitating diseases, illicit drug trade on every continent, terrorism, sophisticated nuclear weapons in the arsenals of a growing list of nations. These factors are forcing the nations either to seek peace and security through the auspices of the United Nations or to commit global suicide.

Former Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze observed: "The United Nations can function effectively if it has a mandate from its members, if states agree on a voluntary and temporary basis to delegate to it a portion of their sovereign rights and to entrust it with performing certain tasks in the interests of the majority." He added: "Only in this way can we make the period of peace lasting and irreversible."

If this could be done, then the UN?s voice of jurisdiction could authoritatively denounce any nation threatening the peace of the world. With real power at its disposal, it could suppress such aggressors forcefully and swiftly. But will UN member nations ever give it this mandate, ?making available their armed forces, assistance and facilities? to secure peace? (Article 43(1)) They might?if a crisis threatened to undermine the very foundation upon which their respective national sovereignties rest. If the nations see that ?uniting their strength to maintain international peace and security? under UN auspices could remove such threats, this might increase their respect for it.

Perhaps you are wondering, ?Was the UN?s role in the Persian Gulf crisis a start in this direction?? It could be. Many nations were confronted with the possible calamitous collapse of their economies. And if their interwoven economies crashed, so would the entire world?s. So the nations rallied together under the United Nations. The Security Council passed a series of UN resolutions to end the crisis peacefully, and when this failed, it backed a UN resolution on the use of force in the Gulf.

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker, in calling for this resolution, said: "History has now given us another chance. With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build a world which was envisioned by the founders of . . . the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. . . . We must fulfill our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world." And he observed concerning their debate about the use of force in the Gulf: "[It] will, I think, rank as one of the most important in the history of the United Nations. It will surely do much to determine the future of this body."

Jehovah?s Witnesses firmly believe that the United Nations is going to play a major role in world events in the very near future. No doubt these developments will be very exciting. And the results will have a far-reaching impact on your life. We urge you to ask Jehovah?s Witnesses in your neighborhood for more details on this matter. The Bible clearly paints a picture showing that the United Nations will very shortly be given power and authority. The UN will then do some very astonishing things that may well amaze you. And you will be thrilled to learn that there is yet a better way near at hand that will surely bring eternal peace and security!

[Picture on page 9]

Guido de Marco, president of the UN General Assembly (right), and Secretary-General Pérez de Cuéllar at the 45th session of the Assembly

[Credit Line]

UN photo 176104/Milton Grant

And this website is always good to check.

http://quotes.watchtower.ca/united_nations.htm

Hope this helps

1991 Awake article on favorable writings on the UN--Your input

blondie

garybuss

blondie

EvilForce

Kenneson

El blanko

Share this