So, whose is the UN? | Vladimir Acosta

Founding of the UN in San Francisco on June 26, 1945

Silly question. Whose could it be? Of the United States, of course, although accomplices or clueless they still repeat that it belongs to what they call "the international community" and that it is also "the Parliament of Humanity."

Some history would be needed here.

The United States founded the UN in 1945, at the end of the Second War, as a key part of its immediate plan to assume dominance of the planet. It's heir to the so-called League of Nations, a monstrosity created at the end of the First War at the proposal of US President Wilson, but in which their country did not want to enter. By the way, in those 30s and 40s of the twentieth century there was no talk of "international community" but of "concert of nations", one thing as false as the other.

It was easy for the United States to create the UN. President Roosevelt was in charge of imposing the project and Assistant Secretary of State Rockefeller of moving the pieces. Our countries, his backyard, were essential to Yankee rule. Rockefeller summons them all, except Argentina, suspected of Nazism, to a meeting in Mexico, in Chapultepec. There he blocks them and takes them nose to nose to San Francisco, where the inaugural meeting is held. That initial UN is small. Europe has few members as only countries opposed to Nazism enter. Almost all Asian and African countries are colonies and they are not present but their masters. With control of the backyard, the United States dominates the assembly and also has an absolute majority in the Security Council that governs the body. There he is accompanied by the other big four: the United Kingdom, France, Chiang kai shek's China, and the Soviet Union. But it only manages to introduce two friendly countries into the assembly: Ukraine and Belarus, and it is practically alone, which forces it to use the right to veto at every step to prevent the United States from crushing it by imposing its will on it.

The installation in New York was less easy, but in the end it prevailed. Rockefeller offers the land and handles the sale. Thus, the UN remains tied to New York. The headquarters is discussed, but the United States imposes on New York, and it will be since 1948 when the headquarters building begins to rise. In short, full American control. There is extraterritoriality, yes, but limited and even fictitious: the United States has prevented members from entering the UN because they are from countries that oppose it.

In subsequent decades, things change somewhat. But the United States is still the owner. These are times of Cold War and take advantage of them. Germany and Japan have entered, now friends. And then Franco, old friend. But there are also many African and Asian countries recently liberated from colonialism. They are anti-colonialists and it soon begins to seduce them to buy their votes. Its support for Israel is increasingly being rejected and it must now use the veto. Mr. Veto is no longer the Russian, who now has support to prevent gringo outrages.

The Vietnam War wears down and discredits the United States. In the 70s, China finally entered and Taiwan left. More recently things have reached the point where the rejection of the United States is growing and then it decides to take advantage of the legal contradictions of the UN. Or just ignore it, going over it. It declares that its laws apply throughout the world, but that only its laws apply in the United States. That is, with the UN when it agrees to go with them and without the UN when it does not agree. So you can freely do what you want with the world.

And I think it appropriate to ask several questions about those UN legal contradictions and the silences and complicities on which they are based.

Let's see, what is this "international community"?

Is the world today, as the system's media affirm daily and mercenary journalists repeat like parrots? The concept of community is certainly polysemic, but in cases like this it would refer to similar societies united by common ties and sharing common values ​​and interests. What applicability would that have in the current case of this planet? In it, a small group of rich and powerful countries led by the United States exploits and plunders the vast majority of poor and weak countries, and invades, humiliates and despises them, using for this their economic, political, financial, military and media power whose Instruments are organizations such as NATO, the OAS, TIAR, DEA, SWIFT and even the UN itself for their silence or complicity in many cases.

And what is that pompous "Parliament of Humanity"?

Is the UN a parliament? No, it is not. It is quite the opposite. In the parliaments, deputies discuss and decide by majority. What is decided is law and it is fulfilled. Not here. Here the assembly is to sometimes listen to speeches as good as they are useless and above all to usually do catharsis. And what is decided in it does not count for anything, because the one who commands and decides is the Security Council that from the first day is dominated by the United States, which, of its 5 permanent members, with a veto, controls 3. Because the another 10 that are passing through and are changed every 2 years have no weight. Most serve the United States and sometimes don't even have a say. Thus, when it cannot impose itself by blackmailing or bribing, the United States vetoes, and then acts on its own.

In addition, in the assembly itself, the discussion is difficult because the United States controls most countries, gives coups to subdue them, buys them with aid that is usually arms sales so that they kill themselves fighting with their neighbors, threaten blackmails, or insults them. Examples abound. We have seen and heard their representatives in the assembly warning weak countries that were going to vote against them to think well because their aid would run out and they would have a hard time. So when the assembly decides by a clear majority something that the United States does not accept, then it ignores it and does what it wants. This is the case, year after year, of the assembly's massive rejection of the criminal US blockade against Cuba. There are 192 votes against the blockade and 2 votes in favor: yours and Israel's. It is more than enough, and the lock remains. What a democracy, what a parliament, and what humanity must accept that!

Another question: what do the General Secretaries do? They are an important part of the problem because they represent the organism (by the way, so far there are none, and luckily for the world that Madeleine Albright or Condoleeza Rice did not). The Secretaries General have been a string of servile friends or accomplices of the United States. The only decent one has been Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whom he vetoed to put the servile and corrupt Kofi Annan. The current one, Guterres, has the face of good people, but nothing more. Let go, and in complex or uncomfortable problems like the Essequibo he prefers not to get involved.

It is a nominal position. They lack real power, but they enjoy economic advantages. In short, an ideal position to have a blast, keeping quiet or looking the other way while the United States bombs and launches missiles on countries that reject its rule. Or while Israel, bombing Palestine or Lebanon, attacks a post of the UN itself in which its officials are killed, as happened in past years in Lebanon without Kofi Annan making the slightest gesture of complaint.

And one last question, until when will this humanity, partly complicit and partly submissive and humiliated, accept that this irreformable UN continues to be installed in New York, that the United States manages it and treats it as its instrument and that, with or without it, continue to do what you want against countries that condemn your abuses and no longer accept to submit to your rule?

Good question for a next time.

 

Sponsored links