Russia/Ukraine: UN and NATO Fail Again, Like They Failed on Muslim Genocide

While the world watches Russia invade Ukraine and turn geopolitics upside down, the question is asked: where were the United Nations and NATO?

Dr. Aldo Zammit Borda, an expert in International Criminal Justice, gives a reality check about the UN’s diminishing influence in geopolitics.

The Guardian:

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine exposes the extraordinary failure of the UN security council to live up to its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. The peace was broken by one of the permanent members of the security council [Russia], which are able to abuse their privileges and treat this body with disdain.

…What we are witnessing here is not just a flagrant breach of international law but also a stark sense of resignation on the part of the other permanent members of the security council with respect to Ukraine’s occupation.

Despite having clear-cut evidence of amassing Russian troops at the Ukrainian border months before the actual invasion, the United Nations and NATO were unable to prevent Putin from initiating a potential global war.

Whereas these organizations had generously afforded Russia the benefit of the doubt and open channels for dialogue despite intelligence agencies confirming hostilities, all it took were now-debunked rumors of Saddam Hossein possessing weapons of mass destructions to have the Western World’s military might fall upon Iraq and level an entire nation to the ground.

Double standards much?

Harvard International Review:

Ever since its foundation in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has had a straightforward strategy to maintain peace in Europe: “keep the Soviet Union out, the United States in, and the Germans down,”.

…in recent years, NATO has been suffering from a crisis of purpose, and many of its members are no longer convinced of the value of being in the alliance…ever since Russia’s 2014 invasion of eastern Ukraine, NATO members Poland and Romania have been front and center in trying to resist Russian pressure imposed on former Soviet nations.

While NATO nations have joined together to condemn and sanction Russia for its actions…These nations believe that current NATO actions are wildly insufficient to counter the growing Russian threat, and have become increasingly exasperated at the lack of concerted action taken by the alliance.

RELATED: War in Ukraine: How Would Muslims Be Affected?

If NATO isn’t able to fulfill its major key points of limiting Russian influence and keeping Europe safe, what’s the point of even having the organization in the first place? How was an organization filled with some of the brightest military minds unable to recognize the 2014 annexation of Crimea as a precursor to emerging Russian nation-building?

Sounds like total incompetence.

Scottish Center for Global History:

…As for the failures, the UNO [United Nations Organization] certainly could not stop war or protect the millions killed or displaced since 1945 but this has mostly been down to the veto of five countries.

The five countries in question: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States have special veto privileges as per their status as “permanent members” of the United Nations.

RELATED: The United Nations Rats Out Uyghurs

UN Security Council:

Permanent members use the veto to defend their national interests, to uphold a tenet of their foreign policy, or, in some cases, to promote a single issue of particular importance to a state.

Can you see the common denominator for all five? Any Muslim could tell you that each of these particular members has a deep distaste for Islam especially and have an extensive rap sheet for human rights violations for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It’s important to notice the wordings and euphemisms. The vetoes surrounding these “national interests” are actually just allotted favoritisms to colonial empires that allow them to lay claim to being humanitarians while partaking in atrocities.

…the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) cast the first veto on a draft resolution regarding the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon and Syria…

…Since 1970, the US has used the veto far more than any other permanent member, most frequently to block decisions that it regards as detrimental to the interests of Israel…

…the governments of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland…advocated for permanent members to “refrain … from using a veto to block Council action aimed at preventing or ending genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity”

It’s extremely ironic to be asked to refrain from using vetoes that support genocide and war crimes in an organization whose goal is to fight against crimes against humanity. If it wasn’t obvious, the UN and other Western organizations like NATO serve very specific political interests that usually place peace as an afterthought.

If there is a silver lining for these organizations, it’s that Muslims can readily identify nation-states within these organizations that encourage, support, and revel in genocide, war crimes, and global instability.

Whether it be the United State’s historical support of Israel, Russian atrocities in the Muslim world, China’s unchecked genocide of the Uyghurs, France’s 1956 invasion of Egypt, or UK’s involvement in the illegal war on Iraq: all these are a testament to the UN’s failure as an organization and important insights to the bloodthirsty permanent members that spearhead its decisions.

But why is the world only now crying about the ineffectiveness of Western global governance?

RELATED: A Step-By-Step Guide to Avoid Accountability for War Crimes: Afghanistan Edition

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
akh

I knew a confrontation was imminent when a few years back I saw, that now iconic photo of, the four ministers of defense of four European countries…all women. That image was part of an article called “Female defence ministers pledge to break Europe’s old boys’ network”.

Doing something like that signals to your adversaries that you’re weak. Your adversaries are now more likely to challenge you and even attack.

M.Z.

hehe
useless nations (UN) still relevant erhh??🤣
Palestine taught me a lot. I don’t care bout any. May Allah’s curse b on the disbelievers
We are in dire dire dire need of the shariah🥲

Baz

The Amreeky Ummah have their own khi1apha called the United States of America. Because of that, Americans never suffer from genocides, concentration camps, or occupations by hostile foreign enemies like how we Muslims are, simply because they’re a superpower too powerful to be attacked by anyone. This is why we also need our own superpower country or khi1apha, a United States of Islam, so that we don’t have to suffer from genocides, occupations, reeducation camps, and other persecutions anymore.

Baz

We can’t trust or rely on United Nations as it is right now when we don’t even have our own country yet. But once we finally have our United States of Islam (USI) set up and running, it should try to join UN and barge into the big 5 to become the 6th permanent member of the Security council. Then we can at least be on a level playing field with the other big 5, veto their decisions against us and pursue our own national interests, instead of letting them bully us and kick us around like football

Baz

However, for this USI to exist sustainably with Muslim popular support and not fall into “moderate vs hardliner” civil war, ultra-orthodox hardliners like Mus. skeptic have 2 swallow their ego and accept reality that entire country cannot b under Talib-style too-strict harsh draconian system that I call “hard sharia”. Instead, USI major cities will have to b under less restrictive type of islamic law that I call “soft sharia”. Hard sharia is only suitable for ultra-conservative areas like Afghan

Sardor

who the hell are you to classify and divide sharia into parts, if you dont like talibs’ sharia, say and prove their mistakes and you can say they are on the wrong way and introduce your right way(there are no soft or hard shariah) of shariah.

Baz

You spread LIE that there’s only “1 size fits all 1 true” sharia version! Many groups claim to support “1 and only true version of Islam/sharia” & they all contradict each other, 1 group says XYZ is haram/crime, other group says it’s halal/legal. Go 2 comment of Mus skeptic 25-Jan article “War in Ukraine: How would Muslims be affected?” where I explain everything in detail, & don’t ever respond anything 2 me again until u read it all. Just like madhab, there’s more than 1 valid sheria