Perched on the cusp of a new year, the global community can only wonder what 2003 will bring. A certainty is bloodshed - the question is only in the amount, the degree, the total death count attributable to international conflict. There have been very few years in mankind’s history during which there have been no wars, armed conflicts. The new year began not only with the long-festering extant problems and unresolved issues - Palestine and Israel only the most evident - but added to the already existing “war on terrorism” is the very real possibility of wars aimed at removing despots from power in Iraq and North Korea.

It was thought after the smoke of WW II settled, that the formation of an international organization, acting as global negotiator and if need be as policeman to avert large-scale international warfare would be the answer. Leaders of democratic nations gathered at Dunbarton Oaks in 1944 to put forth proposals, which in turn led to the San Francisco Conference, that lasted for two months, from April 25th to June 26th 1945. On that final day representatives of 50 nations were the founder signatories of the United Nations charter. Yet, the charter only became ratified when the world’s five major powers - the U.S., Soviet Union, Great Britain, France and China agreed to the charter’s terms. [As an interesting historical aside, Iraq was a founding member, while the big losers in WW II were not accepted until much later - Italy in 1955, Japan in 1956, and the two Germanys, East and West, not until 1973.] Note here, that of the five ratifying nations, two were communist.

Today, fulfilling the aims of the UN’s founders, only a handful of the recognized countries in the world are not members. 98% are. The majority are either in the sphere of communist influence, questionable kingdoms where democracy is a mere word, or run by dictators who openly consider American values as threatening.

It is this very fact that makes the UN impotent. It cannot rule a divided world, where so much terror and cruelty reigns, no matter what its charter aspires to.
For all its good intentions the UN has become a bloated impediment to effective and - when necessary - rapid decision making. Consider the exceedingly obvious. Without the USA the UN is just an amalgamation of countries squabbling over regional issues. True internationalism is rare. With the exception of the Balkan operations, that would not have taken place without the participation and leadership of the Americans, the UN has proven to be during times of crisis a toothless tiger, at most times looking towards Washington for advice on how to act.

Politics dictates, that Washington must at least go through the motions of consulting the UN before setting off on armed excursions abroad. Yet Bush is ready to fight without the stamp of approval. And the UN? 17 “theoretically sound” resolutions that have little actual weight have been passed by the UN since the start of the present Iraq crisis.

Historically, internecine squabbling has resulted in the UN doing little. If anything, the UN validates the leadership of petty tyrants, bigots and zealots. The North Koreans are members of the UN - why do they not listen to UN leaders regarding nuclear weaponry? Why the divisive veto question? On the Security Council, giving vetos to the USSR and China during the Cold War meant that no effective change could possibly take place. Consider as well, that dictators such as the murderous Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe openly flaunt the UN while retaining membership. Mugabe rigs elections, disposesses landowners - mostly white, mostly those or descendants of those who gained lands during colonialism, but this does nevertheless, not make it right, but smacks of Stalinism. To top it off, Mugabe had a voice at the UN’s Sustainable Development Conference, when all the while he was pillaging his country, lining his own pockets, and caring not a whit about the future.

Consider as well the UN’s International Criminal Court. It has not yet arrested anyone from the African states known for their internal bloodletting. Politically incorrect, of course. The Somali situation still persists, among many similar.

The UN is planning implementing global taxes, establishing a UN global army or police force - but how can this be taken seriously, when brutal dictatorships like China and Cuba, brutal fundamentalist Islamic states like Syria and Iran are participating in setting up such a force? Could any sane person truly believe, that Syrian or Cuban petty despots would hold dear the values espoused in the UN charter, entrenched in the American constitution? Giving Syria - a terrorist nation, with proven al Qaeda links - a seat on the UN Human Rights Council is beyond absurd.

The only financial security that the UN has is provided by American funds. Its only military clout is provided by American strength.

Finally, with NAFTA and the EU providing a blueprint for the potential formation of a genuine international economic community, where member nations lose individuality, sovereignty and currency with the accompanying lack of control, a disturbing vision begins to emerge.

Imagine a world run by Chinese “justice”, the economics of Cuban communism ( dependent on capitalism), Syrian human rights - all backed by US military might. That is the future of the UN: more socialism, less advancement towards the common good of an united weal.

The UN, with its US$3+ billion annual budget is a bloated, inefficient house of cards, ready to crumble like the League of Nations did during crisis. Is it any wonder that Bush is serious, that he is ready to fight alone to protect American interests? Like Americans or not - as many despots do not, - don’t expect the UN alone to resolve the crises of 2003.

Märkmed: