A UN without America?

Three capital cities have been bombed recently - Baghdad, Kabul and Belgrade - in a ten-year period, with the nations responsible, the US and UK, evincing no discernible signs of guilt. Twenty-three nations have been bombed by the US since WW2, from Japan in 1945 to Afghanistan in '99 (see below) - that's one nation per three years. That's fourteen percent of all UN member-states. Not one of these attacks had a shred of legality under international law, each was a criminal act. Over that same period, thrice that number of nations were forcibly intervened-upon by the US - a sequence well described in William Blum's Rogue State. Such interventions are a hope-killing experience for the nations concerned (1). Any undue aspiration towards self-realisation by a nation-state over this period, has met with US intervention, covert or overt. That's one-third of UN member-states!

As to why this process is happening, let's have a quote. 'Our overriding purpose, from the beginning through to the present day, has been world domination - that is, to build and maintain the capacity to coerce everybody else on the planet: nonviolently, if possible; and violently, if necessary. But the purpose of US foreign policy of domination is not just to make the rest of the world jump through hoops; the purpose is to facilitate our exploitation of resources.' (Ramsay Clark, formerly US Attorney General) Nations of the world have had to view their precious resources as mere tributaries that flow towards America (2).

Last year the Bush administration issued its blueprint for global domination and ceaseless military intervention, entitled 'The National Security Strategy of the United States' (Sept. 2002), assigning to America the right to attack any nation, any time, any where, with any weapons system it chose, unencumbered by international treaties. The NPT, CTBT, BWC and Landmine Convention have all been thrown out by the Bush administration, along with the ICC and Khyoto Treaty on Global Warming. America's bellicose new unilateralism is radically opposed to the seeking of multilateral accords, for which the UN exists (3).

The US, and to a lesser extent Britain and Israel, have been voting massively against UN resolutions on peace and disarmament for the past thirty years (4). Can this really continue? The UN needs to be composed of nations which agree with its Charter, namely that 'Member States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, and that they undertake to 'settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered'. We are fortunate that such fine words have been composed and signed up to, by most nations of the world, and we only need now to affirm that their literal meaning be adhered to, by member states.

Article 51 of the UN Charter grants the right to inherent or collective self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member of the UN. The two (and only two!) conditions spelt out by the Charter are, firstly that force may only be used after an armed attack, and secondly only until the Security Council takes the necessary action. 'Pre-emptive self-defence' is a violation of the Charter and nothing else (5).

For these reasons, the nations of the world need to take steps towards expelling America from the UN (6). America comprises only 4% of the world's population, and we should avoid believing that it is somehow indispensable, or all-powerful. The League of Nations was the first incarnation of a world government, and was deemed to be inadequate because it excluded America. Let us now affirm, that the UN needs to be composed solely of nations that do actually believe in the UN Charter (7). A World government, if it is to inspire the peoples of the world with hope, must be seen for example to oppose CIA infiltration of nations whose governments have not requested them; and as taking steps towards the removal of US military bases, from countries where a majority of the populace does not desire them; and as opposing plans to bomb further nations by America.

Having Germany replace America in the UN's Security Council, for example, would be a simple way of managing the transition that is now required. A new home for the UN would be found, far from New York. The present undue projection of US power started because the postwar nations of Europe were unable to trust each other, and so requested a US nuclear 'Umbrella'. The too-mighty alliance of NATO needs now to dissolve, with the nations of Europe thanking Uncle Sam, and asking him to go home. At present the US can and does readily summon European nations into its war-without-end geopolitics through the corridors of NATO. Bosnia could have been solved quite sensibly and sensitively if the nations of Europe had been at liberty to sort it out. Britain has a central role in all of this.

To begin the process, let's see the UN starting an ongoing debate among the 60-odd nations which have had their governments forcibly evicted by US intervention and/or assassination. What was it like for you? Engraved upon its wall, let's see the list of 23 nations bombed since WW2, as a terrible memory of how one nation violated so greatly, the agreed axioms of non-violence. Let's see motions debated, requesting that the US desist from its habit of bombing other nations. Let's hear a motion arguing that the two nations which go to war most often, the UK and US, being the two nations which are the world's primary arms exporters, and the two nations which normally vote against UN motions advocating peace, harmony and disarmament - that these two nations are the ones having the highest proportion of their own citizens behind bars. It would be beneficial for these two 'predator' nations to be on the receiving end of such a UN General Assembly discussion!

Let's make, at the start of a new millennium, the affirmation that civilised nations on earth are those which share together a sacred concept, the immunity of non-combatant civilians - i.e., those which are not prepared to threaten women and children in warfare. As weapons systems grow more deadly, it becomes more essential that a nascent world government should affirm this issue as central, as in fact crucial for the continuation of civilized life. This would tend to imply that the nuclear powers be excluded from the holding of privileged positions, these being weapons-systems that cannot in the nature of things make such a distinction.

At Nurenberg, no-one prosecuted city bombers, because both sides had been doing it. Like some horrific mental virus, the US/UK have been continuing doing this, and we all know the wretched reason why: troops too timid to engage with a military enemy, fly above anti-aircraft range where the only targets visible are civilian. There now exists an international criminal court (ICC), and in the course of time the UN will no doubt insist that such practices fall within its remit. On October 10th 2001 a full Afghani mosque was bombed, during prayers. Some hours later, while the bodies were being pulled out, it was re-bombed (8). Is there much point in the UN continuing while such deliberate targeting of civilians takes place, by its most powerful member?

In the long-term, I suggest that a reformed UN should request that US military power, at present the largest known in planet earth's recorded history, be transmuted into an endeavour to reach Mars, and that the US be entrusted with maintaining StarPeace, a non-militarised outer space. This may seem absurd, like putting a shark in charge of the swimming pool, but I merely offer it by way of conjecture. Its army should be in charge of clearing up the landmines, there being presently one per sixty inhabitants of Earth now in place, more from the US than anywhere else. A new United Nations would want to insist that the USA must go for some decent period, say ten years, without once bombing another nation, with not a single illicit intervention to alter a foreign government, before it can again be readmitted to the community of civilized nations, by re-joining the UN. America needs to be expelled from the UN until such time as it is prepared to submit to the rule of international law, as would be signalled by its readiness to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC.

We emerge into the new millennium where a new world government is the only hope for the rescuing of humanity. Britain has never really believed this hitherto, depending instead upon NATO. But now the time has come for the 'axis of evil' US/UK to be sundered and for a different stage in history to begin.

Coming soon to a country near you…

Nations bombed by the US since WW2

Japan 1945
China 1945, 50
Korea 1950
Guatemala 1954, 1960,
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959
Vietnam 1961
Congo 1964
Laos 1964
Peru 1965
Cambodia 1969
Lebanon 1983
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1995
Sudan 1998
Former Jugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001

References
1. William Blum, 'Rogue State, a guide to the world's only Superpower', 2002, Ch.17.

2. John Pilger, 'New Rulers of the World', 2002 p.113.

3. www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/EC2002.htm - Denis Halliday's Erskine Childs Memorial Lecture.

4 www.action-for-un-renewal.org.uk/pages/votes.htm - UN votes against peace & disarmament.

5. http://deoxy.org.wc/wc-un.htm the UN Charter

6. Websites about the US quitting the UN are solely American, eg www.getusout.org/military

7. eg, Geoff Simons, 'Targeting Iraq' Ch.5, 'Subverting the United Nations,' for US undermining of the UN.

8. http://www.j-n-v.org/ARROW_aw_briefings/ARROW_briefing011.htm for Jalalabad mosque bombing.




N Kollestrom 2003