In the News (The National Interest): ”Although the 2016 U.N. meetings seem quite similar compared to others held over the last several years, this week’s debate comes at a time when the international community is inundated with problems in virtually every region of the world. With the exception of a landmark peace agreement that ended five decades of conflict in Colombia, every region is experiencing some degree of threat that could spiral to a whole new level if the international community as a whole and regional governments in particular are unable to find a way to address them. The list is endless and depressing: a humanitarian abomination in Syria and daily terrorist attacks in Iraq; the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe and the biggest challenge to the EU since its foundation; a North Korea on a full tear towards a permanent nuclear weapons capability; Russia flexing its military and diplomatic muscle in the former Soviet Union; and China increasingly carving out more territory for itself in the South China Sea.
“The United Nations was created nearly seventy years ago to ensure that crises that pop up around the world are either mitigated to the greatest possible extent or are solved in a way that doesn’t promote further conflict. After tens of millions of people perished in World War II, the last thing the world wanted was a return to a full-scale armed conflict that produced nothing but more death and societal destruction. At the top of the U.N. pyramid, of course, is the Security Council — a body of the world’s most geopolitically vibrant countries, each with a veto, responsible for the ‘maintenance of international peace and security’ in global politics. If an armed conflict, a natural disaster, an atrocity committed by a government, or a nuclear weapons breakout occurred somewhere around the world, it is up to the Security Council to determine the best course of action in a unified and collective way. And in theory, every U.N. member state is required to uphold the council’s decisions.
“Today, it isn’t a stretch to say that the Security Council is not living up to those obligations. Indeed, what was originally thought to be a body where conciliation and unity between the world’s major powers would avert further war has changed into a forum that resembles a meaningless debating society. But what’s even worse than a meaningless debating society is one whose membership is composed of highly antagonistic actors constantly at each other’s throats regardless of the issue.”
My Comment: The United Nations and the Security Council of the United Nations are a reflection of the general state of the world. Moreover, the member nations of the Security Council are already in a state of open warfare. So it only remains to make this a reality. It is doubtful if after that a place will remain for the existence of the United Nations.
There must be a higher decision to seat all the permanent members of the United Nations in a “circle” and begin to arrange a study with them according to the method of connection and unity. It will be before or after the Third World War, but this will inevitably happen!