Waging Peace - or What's happened to the United Nations
David Weinberger reports a fascinating and different interpretation of the role of the UN in these times. The article describes a speech by Dr Robert Muller, a former assistant secretary general of the UN, who witnessed its founding, who sees the current situation as a fulfilment of his dreams for the UN.
This is quite a twist on the incessant rhetoric provided by the Bush administration and (slavishly parroted by the Blair and Howard governments) that the UN is now irrelevant, and that the Security Council has somehow "failed" the test posed by the US and UK.
On the contrary, he points out that this is the first time protests against war have been so large, so widespread, and all before the war has started. There is intense debate. Major nations have stood up against the need for war. Alternatives have been proposed, though not followed through. This is, I believe, a hopeful step forward in the overall scheme of things.
Alas, we have had to get out of the way of the raving lunatic driving his massive semi-trailer down the middle of the road, who is swerving like a madman from side to side; but the majority of nations have said NO to war.
If the Security Council had capitulated and supported Bush's demands, this would have been the end of the UN as a meaningful force for preventing war. It would have been seen as simply the lap-dog of the USA, obeying the beck and call of an illegimately elected president who seems to be intent on destroying everything I thought the USA stood for, even if imperfectly carried out.
Instead, the UN has proved its relevence. It is desperately sad that the most powerful nation cannot be restrained from its foolishness, but I take some hope from the fact that the UN has stood for its principles, and waged peace instead of war.
David Weinberger reports a fascinating and different interpretation of the role of the UN in these times. The article describes a speech by Dr Robert Muller, a former assistant secretary general of the UN, who witnessed its founding, who sees the current situation as a fulfilment of his dreams for the UN.
This is quite a twist on the incessant rhetoric provided by the Bush administration and (slavishly parroted by the Blair and Howard governments) that the UN is now irrelevant, and that the Security Council has somehow "failed" the test posed by the US and UK.
On the contrary, he points out that this is the first time protests against war have been so large, so widespread, and all before the war has started. There is intense debate. Major nations have stood up against the need for war. Alternatives have been proposed, though not followed through. This is, I believe, a hopeful step forward in the overall scheme of things.
Alas, we have had to get out of the way of the raving lunatic driving his massive semi-trailer down the middle of the road, who is swerving like a madman from side to side; but the majority of nations have said NO to war.
If the Security Council had capitulated and supported Bush's demands, this would have been the end of the UN as a meaningful force for preventing war. It would have been seen as simply the lap-dog of the USA, obeying the beck and call of an illegimately elected president who seems to be intent on destroying everything I thought the USA stood for, even if imperfectly carried out.
Instead, the UN has proved its relevence. It is desperately sad that the most powerful nation cannot be restrained from its foolishness, but I take some hope from the fact that the UN has stood for its principles, and waged peace instead of war.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home