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.
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?
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.
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.
…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
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?