It’s commonly agreed that to attain worldwide peace, we need equality for all. It’s also commonly agreed that it is impossible to carry out the interests of the people without political representation. However, these two notions, once intertwined, create a problem: governments, while acting on behalf of their people, fail to care about people beyond their boundaries.
In an attempt to mend this problem, states have attempted to create international law. This can be exemplified by the United Nations. While I strongly respect the commitments of the UN, I do not believe that it is successfully keeping the peace in this world.
The problem lies at the peak of its hierarchical pyramid. On top, we see the five permanent members of the Security Council. Permanent seems like a very profound word, since it defines something that cannot be mangled and something that will stay around for an infinite amount of time. It’s unfortunate that this permanence belongs to a body of five, considering there are hundreds of different factions that would want representation on a global scale.
Of course we should not forget that within each one of these hundreds of groups, there are thousands of individual opinions, many which are censored even at their own domestic level. Global hierarchy, in a way, reminds me of monarchy. Countries like the United States of America take a considerable amount of time in organizing their troops to ship them off to certain states opposing the notion of democracy, while they, too, willfully participate in non-democratic principles. Permanent reminds me of monarchy as well, because monarchies are run by dynasties, families that remain for an infinite amount of time, unless they are replaced through war. This is something that we are unfortunately managing to overdo these days.
This concept of having only five permanent states, which are ironically linked in a familial manner through their financial similarities, cannot be something that we call unbiased. Some may tell me to produce evidence of how they are biased. Well, since there are only five permanent members, the organization itself is suffering from impartiality; these members hold office forever and have permanent say, meaning most of the UN’s goals are linked to the interests of a particular set of specific nations. Where is the problem with that?
Well the problem with that can be exemplified with the war on Iraq. George W. Bush, with the use of his country’s international status at the top the pyramid, justified his economic goals regarding Iraq by fabricating one of the best sellers of our generation. Saddam Hussein, although savagely atrocious towards his own people, was now apparently turning his nation into a safe haven for Islamic extremists.
Last I checked, Hussein had always followed the Baathist principles, the concept of creating a secular Arab nation based on socialist-like approaches. Religious fanatics strongly opposed Hussein’s regime.
Firstly, secular is not a word found in religious fundamentalists’ dictionaries. Secondly, socialism is considered the devil’s manuscript to these people. The only similarity that existed between these two conflicting parties (Saddam and the religious fundamentalists in the region) was their fetish for killing. Had those two parties been locked up in the same borders, I think Iraq would have been turned into a killing spree long before US intervention.
It is mostly unfortunate that the US, which has the most authority on international grounds, in reference to its permanent rule over the UN, had never pointed at these facts in order to study their so-called legitimate invasion. This is why, I believe, in order to attain universal peace permanent members should not exist.
While the UN does conduct successful peacekeeping missions at times, warmongering is often justified simultaneously.
For more thoughts and opinion from Mohamad Rachid G., check out his independent blog here.