Berl Falbaum
With Russia’s murderous, cold-blooded assault on Ukraine, we are, once again, witnessing the fecklessness of the United Nations (U.N.).
Wish we could say this is the first time. But through the years, since its inception in 1945, the U.N. has behaved more as a debating club than one that, according to its mission statement, is committed to bringing “hostilities to an end as soon as possible.”
Whether it involved genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Kosovo or countless wars around the globe, in the 77 years of the U.N.’s existence, the organization has displayed a helplessness that has cost millions of lives.
Thus, Ukraine President Zelensky, was right—and politically courageous—when he consistently questioned the agency’s effectiveness.
Calling the organization “weak”—not exactly the language of diplomacy—he said in a one emotional address, “It is obvious that the key institution of the world designed to combat aggression and ensure peace cannot work effectively.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to remind you of Article 1, Chapter 1 of the U.N. Charter. What is the purpose of our organization? Its purpose is to maintain and make sure that peace is adhered to. And now the U.N. charter is violated literally starting with Article 1.” Then, he asked, “And so, what is the point of all other Articles?"
He added: "I am addressing you on behalf of the people who honor the memory of the deceased every single day and in the memory of the civilians who died, who were shot and killed in the back of their head after being tortured.”
To such criticism of inaction, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield replied, during an interview on PBS, that the U.S. will continue to work to pressure Russian President Putin with resolutions calling for his withdrawal from Ukraine.
The last resolution, adopted by the U.N. in early March, demanded “… that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”
(The resolution’s wording is troublesome in and of itself. “…[W]ithin its internationally recognized borders” implies, intentionally or not, that Russia may have claims to Ukrainian land).
Even PBS News Anchor Judy Woodruff, one of the few TV journalists who works hard at maintaining objectivity, followed up with a question, that started with “in all due respect,” and ended with the observation that Putin did not seem to be intimidated. You could hear and feel frustration in her voice.
Not fazed, Thomas-Greenfield told Woodruff that was not the end of it; the U.S. would initiate a resolution to have Russia removed from the U.S. Human Rights Council.
Sure enough, the U.N. General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the council. Now, that ought to do it. We can just envision Putin caving in to such a threat, and fearing the wrath of God.
What’s worse, Russia, as a permanent member of the Security Council, has veto power over any actions it opposes. While the U.N. founders could not have predicted the role Russia would play in the future, none of the Council’s members should have been granted veto power.
That’s like giving defendants in criminal trials the power to negate guilty verdicts from juries. Members of the Security Council should not even have a vote on resolutions or actions directed at them.
The major problem: The U.N. charter does not provide for any enforcement measures.
What could be done or, in hindsight, what should have been done to give the U.N. power to have its resolutions implemented?
Suppose the founders of the U.N. had created an international military force with each member country providing manpower and financial support in concert with a formula fair to all.
That military force then would act when the U.N.’s resolutions were flagrantly ignored. That would be a threat to brutal dictators like Putin and others who have just yawned and maybe even chuckled, at U.N. actions.
It would also have taken the burden off the U.S. that has served as the “policeman” in the world.
The mission of the blue-helmeted U.N. peacekeeping unit is too limited for the kind of military action needed nor does it have the manpower or military might to carry out effective military operations. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), composed of 30 countries, has a military force, but its mission is not international; it is designed to protect member countries.
(To be fair, while the U.N. has failed in the military/political arena, it has done outstanding work in fighting poverty, feeding the hungry, sponsoring programs to help children around the world and in other similar efforts).
And we might point out there are at least 15 other wars, some creating humanitarian disasters, such as in Yemen, that are not even on the U.N.’s radar—nor have they attracted the attention of the media.
The tragedy is, as even Thomas-Greenfield, acknowledged, the U.S. has to work within the limits of the U.N. charter as adopted in 1945. Not much can be done about that now. Which means thousands more will die in the Ukraine and, it is likely, we will face such inhumanity in the future with the U.N. unable to stop the carnage.
All we can do is cry.
———
Berl Falbaum is a veteran political columnist and author of 12 books.
