UN: guarantor of world peace or a collection of talkers


This year, among other anniversaries glorious and significant for our country, is also the 75th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Alas, it is regrettable to admit, but this world-wide structure, originally conceived as a keeper of a peaceful sky for all mankind, over the years of its existence has turned into a club hybrid for empty discussions and, much worse, another tool serving the United States political ambitions States. How did it happen?


First of all, it is worth recognizing: a certain wormhole was laid in the very foundation of the UN even before the signing of its charter. The idea that arose (there is every reason to believe so) during the meeting of the "Big Three" in Yalta was based on the fact that the victorious countries of Nazism and Japanese militarism will continue to work hand in hand, despite differences in ideology and social structure. the prevention of new wars. Alas, the split of the camp of the victors and their allies into the capitalist and socialist camp, the ensuing Cold War, the confrontation of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization brought to naught all the aspirational aspirations. The UN, instead of a body for cooperation of like-minded people, has become an arena of confrontation and geopolitical accounts. We did not start this, but we could not prevent it.

You can talk as much as you like about the titanic efforts put forward by this organization for allotted to it three quarters of a century to combat hunger, disease or poverty, but the fact remains. The UN proved to be unable to cope with its most important task, preventing and ending wars. This became absolutely clear shortly after its founding. The suffering of the peoples of Korea and Vietnam tormented by the American occupiers did not stop the “blue helmets” or the formidable Security Council resolutions that they already wanted to sneeze in Washington, but the intervention of the Soviet Union and the Chinese comrades, who pretty much gave the presumptuous Yankees. The UN peacekeeping contingent was also unable to prevent wars between India and Pakistan in the 60s and 70s of the last century.

Well, then it went and went ... As the USSR and the socialist camp collapsed, the United States and its NATO allies began to redraw the world of their own mind and without regard to anyone at all. In fact, the UN was worth dissolving itself after the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, which showed in full its “significance” and “influence” in the world. Iraq, Libya, Syria ... The United Nations in all cases either dutifully assent to the aggressors and invaders, on whose territory, by the way, its headquarters is located, or humbly silent in a rag. The same applies to the civil war, which has been going on in the Donbas for the sixth year already. However, what is the US confrontation? The Blue Helmets suffered a series of infamous fiascoes, even trying to prevent tribal clashes in Africa. Neither the Hutus were saved, nor the Tutsis, nor in Angola could not cope.

A huge problem, among other things, is today also the complete discrepancy between the structure of the UN and its main organs to the real picture beyond recognition of the world that has changed over 75 years. Endless debate over the expansion of the number of permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, and this right as such, is just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, everything is much more complicated and confusing. In principle, so many new contradictions, problems and realities have accumulated during this time that it has become clear: humanity needs some other organization.

Situations in which the UN acts as a kind of world government, or, at worst, the collective mind of the Earth, as merciful as wise, are exclusively plots of science fiction films, and even less so. Resolutions of a purely recommendatory nature, an empty and endless talking room for any reason, often just in those moments when people in need of salvation die somewhere in the thousands — all this did not add to the UN either authority or respect. Moreover, the “deflection” under US interests, which has become increasingly clear in recent years ...

There is no doubt: in honor of the 75th anniversary of the UN, many high words and phrases will be said and written. However, reality testifies that either a radical reform of the organization is required, or its replacement with something else. The world needs an alliance that can change it for the better, and not an expensive gathering of talkers.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Jack O'Neill 17 February 2020 16: 33 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    UN: guarantor of world peace or a collection of talkers

    Now - yes, talkers. But in the early 50s and until the 80s ...
    1. Geniuses 17 February 2020 16: 35 New
      • 4
      • 3
      +1
      UN: guarantor of world peace or a collection of talkers

      Neither - nor this. Dangles in the hole organized by the USA and its allies, as ...
      1. svp67 17 February 2020 16: 55 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Quote: Geni
        Dangles in the hole organized by the USA and its allies, as ...

        And sadly, not without our participation ..
        1. Geniuses 17 February 2020 18: 44 New
          • 7
          • 1
          +6
          Quote: svp67
          And sadly, not without our participation ..

          It depends on what is considered our participation! The result, otherwise, could be even worse and not only for us.
    2. Svarog 17 February 2020 16: 39 New
      • 11
      • 3
      +8
      Quote: Jack O'Neill
      UN: guarantor of world peace or a collection of talkers

      Now - yes, talkers. But in the early 50s and until the 80s ...

      The practical benefits of this organization are now really few. It was relevant under the USSR, so to speak, a platform for ascertaining intentions and preventing the Third World ..
      1. Aerodrome 17 February 2020 16: 53 New
        • 12
        • 2
        +10
        children's questions ... for a long time all the United Nations, The Hague, and other kakinafig send ... better "curtain" than to live in such a "hostel" without a "curtain" ...
        1. g1washntwn 18 February 2020 07: 13 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          What pancake curtain? The West does not even have enough tape for Russia, and you propose to curtain the curtains and again at your own expense. Even if we find so much metal, then in the West in general a tantrum will happen ...
          Quote: Clifford Saymak
          There is nothing worse than the unknown, nothing is so alarming as the inexplicable.
  2. BAI
    BAI 17 February 2020 16: 38 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    The UN is a force if it includes states that, alone or in alliance with someone, can by military means achieve the implementation of UN decisions. Since there are no such states or unions now, the destiny of the UN is boltology.
  3. Lamata 17 February 2020 16: 38 New
    • 7
    • 6
    +1
    I support the author !!! But the UN is a great start platform for all daughters and nephews, prestigious !!!
    When Yugoslavia began to be bombed in 1999, Kofi Annan disappeared altogether from the news blocks, sometimes for a month
  4. Van 16 17 February 2020 16: 42 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    A correct article, the UN now has nothing to do with its task at all.
    1. Nyrobsky 17 February 2020 22: 00 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Quote: Van 16
      A correct article, the UN now has nothing to do with its task at all.
      This office was previously about nothing. The only counterweight and deterrent was the USSR, which all the same did not fully guarantee peace from the unleashing of wars by the United States. Already in 2009, Gaddafi spoke about the essence and futility of the UN, but for 11 years nothing has changed for the better. It got worse, yes.
  5. prior 17 February 2020 16: 43 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    "... so many new contradictions, problems and realities have accumulated during this time that it has become clear: humanity needs some other organization."

    There have been so many contradictions, problems, diseases and viruses that have accumulated over this time that it becomes clear: no organization can save humanity ....
    Saving the drowning - becomes the work of the drowning.
  6. svp67 17 February 2020 16: 54 New
    • 8
    • 1
    +7
    UN: guarantor of world peace or a collection of talkers
    After the collapse of the USSR and the entire communist system, the UN turned from a "guarantor of peace" into a "collection of talkers", as the system of "counterweights disappeared"
  7. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 16: 57 New
    • 10
    • 2
    +8
    Incorrect formulation of the question ... By asking its author, it is on a par with those who are trying to rewrite the history of WWII ... We must ask the question: What should we do so that the UN remains and remains the guarantor of world peace? The answer is Russia should be a strong state and regain sovereignty in economic matters. Defeat financial globalists in Russia. Convene a new Yalta conference. Sharing peace and responsibility for security between Russia, China, USA.
    1. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 09 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      From the UN Security Council to throw France and Britain. France did not deserve, I Brita is the same as the United States.
    2. mat-vey 17 February 2020 17: 23 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: Tank jacket
      -Russia must be a strong state and regain sovereignty in economic matters. Defeat financial globalists in Russia. Convene a new Yalta conference. Sharing peace and responsibility for security between Russia, China, USA.

      And how to do it? No well, seriously HOW?
      1. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 27 New
        • 3
        • 2
        +1
        Many countries and the Russian Federation are already doing this, including by refusing the dollar in settlements. Cabinet changed left to throw Nabiullina, etc. Review the results of privatization. Gaidar’s constitution to redo.
        1. mat-vey 17 February 2020 17: 31 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          And will this make Russia a strong state?
          1. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 35 New
            • 3
            • 2
            +1
            Do you think the Russian Federation should obey the IMF? To live according to the constitution of the ghoul Gaidar? Keep Nabiullina the head of the Central Bank? Continue to wait for the vaunted dollar investment which will never be?
            1. mat-vey 17 February 2020 17: 39 New
              • 4
              • 2
              +2
              Quote: Tank jacket
              Do you think the Russian Federation should obey the IMF? To live according to the constitution of the ghoul Gaidar? Keep Nabiullina the head of the Central Bank? Continue to wait for the vaunted dollar investment which will never be?

              And why do you think that I should think so? Is it that I have appointed Nabibulin? Am I waiting for an investment? I was pushing an alcoholic Gaidar to the Prime Ministers, and after death I perpetuated the memory and pushed eulogies?
        2. The comment was deleted.
  8. Just a Traveler 17 February 2020 17: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Alas....
    And you really need to do something about it ....
  9. Rurikovich 17 February 2020 17: 04 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    I agree with the author. Even when the USSR was in contrast to the Western menagerie, the UN was still relevant, but from the 90s it was an absolutely useless organization. ABSOLUTELY! negative
  10. avib 17 February 2020 17: 12 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Have Russia or China taken away "veto power" in the UN Security Council?
    It seems not. So what has changed then?
    Only the decisions of the UN Security Council are binding. The remaining resolutions are of a recommendatory nature.
    Of course, it is not very pleasant that the voice of Gabon, when voting in the General Assembly, has the same weight as the voice of Russia or the United States, but this is already the cost of "democracy."
  11. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 20 New
    • 2
    • 3
    -1
    Lavrov proposes to move the UN headquarters to the city of Sochi.
    1. prior 17 February 2020 17: 34 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      UN and Sochi ?! Warm and gentle nights ... Many smiled.
      We already have a Valdai club, there you can also chat about a lot.
      1. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In Sochi, at least a visa will be given to ambassadors ...
  12. Masha 17 February 2020 17: 28 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    over the years of existence has turned into a hybrid

    May it not perish ... mutant!
  13. Amateur 17 February 2020 17: 31 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    With a good word and a gun, you can achieve much more than just a good word. - attributed to Al Capone

    The "pistol" performed by the UN over the past 50 years has never led to good (since the Korean War). Therefore, definitely - BOLLTUNES
  14. Sergey Averchenkov 17 February 2020 17: 47 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    UN is nothing. Shit on a stick.
    1. Range 17 February 2020 21: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is OOM for the male closet, OOL for the female, UN for non-traditionalists. In short, it closes and in Africa it closes.
  15. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 17: 49 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: mat-vey
    Quote: Tank jacket
    Do you think the Russian Federation should obey the IMF? To live according to the constitution of the ghoul Gaidar? Keep Nabiullina the head of the Central Bank? Continue to wait for the vaunted dollar investment which will never be?

    And why do you think that I should think so? Is it that I have appointed Nabibulin? Am I waiting for an investment? I was pushing an alcoholic Gaidar to the Prime Ministers, and after death I perpetuated the memory and pushed eulogies?

    You ask inappropriate questions, so I think that you are a liberal in the bad sense of the word.
    1. mat-vey 17 February 2020 18: 11 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      But what is inappropriate? I here according to your answers I consider that you are an ordinary verbiage.
  16. rocket757 17 February 2020 18: 03 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As is, according to his affairs .... almost a club on interests, a little practical use.
  17. Vyacheslav Viktorovich 17 February 2020 18: 03 New
    • 1
    • 3
    -2
    The UN cannot be a tool to satisfy the political ambitions of the United States, because Russia has a veto. The United States satisfies its ambitions by putting a bolt on the UN, and precisely for this reason it can be stated that the UN is not working.
    1. mat-vey 17 February 2020 18: 25 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Well, the United Nations dragged to Libya and Yugoslavia.
  18. Tank jacket 17 February 2020 18: 13 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Quote: mat-vey
    And will this make Russia a strong state?

    Do you think this will weaken Russia? wassat
    1. mat-vey 17 February 2020 18: 24 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I believe that this will not affect the UN in any way ... Although if for you this government is different from the government of the Gaidar, then in vain you call someone a liberal - you will see a liberal in the mirror.
  19. Mathafaka 17 February 2020 18: 20 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    Impudent Americans, Great Union.
    Tyap - bloopers and new material is ready for publication
  20. Mathafaka 17 February 2020 18: 22 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    What kind of UN was the Union thinking when it made a coup in Kabul and entered Afghanistan?
    1. Egoza 17 February 2020 18: 32 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Mathafaka
      What kind of UN was the Union thinking when it made a coup in Kabul and entered Afghanistan?

      Here it is not necessary la la! The USSR did not suit the coup! And he introduced troops only after a request for help from the then existing, official government
      1. Avior 17 February 2020 20: 23 New
        • 0
        • 3
        -3
        Here it is not necessary la la! The USSR did not suit the coup! And he introduced troops only after a request for help from the then existing, official government

        After asking for help from the then current, official government of Amin, the troops were introduced, but Amin himself was replaced by Karmal.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BC_%D0%B4%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%86%D0%B0_%D0%90%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0
  21. Mathafaka 17 February 2020 18: 32 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    What kind of war did the 《Yankees》 start in Korea? Who the hell are you lying to?


    The war began in North Korea. Kim Il Sung was Red Army Officer and try to refute it!


    North Korea, with the support of the Soviet Union and China, attacked South Korea. And almost completely occupied the entire Korean peninsula.
    Later according to UN Security Council Resolutions No. 82 Coalition of UN Peacekeeping Forces liberates South Korea.

    Well, you're lying so brazenly.
  22. vanavatny 17 February 2020 18: 41 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    only in a strong multipolar world does this collection have any sense, and it’s just so pointless dirtying of paper before using it after defecation, the whole story, after 1991, about this
  23. fif21 17 February 2020 19: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The UN should be in Switzerland (neutral country) The UN in the USA, this is a mistake of the world community. hi
    1. Egoza 17 February 2020 19: 44 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: fif21
      The UN should be in Switzerland (neutral country) The UN in the USA, this is a mistake of the world community.

      Better yet, in Antarctica. In that cold, you will not sit down for a long time and they will speak shortly, clearly and in essence!
    2. Avior 17 February 2020 20: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In addition to the buildings in New York, the UN has three additional regional headquarters: in Geneva (Switzerland), Vienna (Austria) and Nairobi (Kenya) [4]. However, the most important decisions of the organization are made in New York, since most meetings of the General Assembly and the UN Security Council are held here.

      The United Nations was formed on October 24, 1945 and initially did not have its own building. The first meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council of the Organization were held in London. The decision to deploy the UN near New York was made by the General Assembly at its first session on February 14, 1946 in London after proposals were received from many countries around the world for a permanent location of the Organization [6]. Since August 16, 1946, UN headquarters has been temporarily located in Lake Sacs, Long Island. On December 14, 1946, the General Assembly adopted the proposal of John D. Rockefeller Jr. on the allocation of $ 8,5 million for the purchase of the current site for the construction of a permanent UN headquarters [7].

      Against the construction of headquarters in New York, according to the latest data [8], France, Great Britain and the Netherlands voted in due time.

      At first, New York was not even considered as the possible seat of UN Headquarters. Proposals came from different cities in Europe and North America. There was even a proposal to place headquarters on a ship that would constantly plow the seas and oceans, making a kind of round-the-world voyage.

      Before the Organization gained a permanent seat, it changed addresses repeatedly, beginning in January 1946, when the first session of the General Assembly opened in London. From there, in March 1946, the UN moved to the Hunter College building in the Bronx, New York, and in August 1946 settled in one of the Sperry Gyroscope buildings in Lake Success, New York. Even before moving to Lake Success, several Security Council meetings were held at the Henry Hudson Hotel on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan.

      On December 10, 1945, the United States Congress invited the United Nations to settle in the United States. The decision to accept this proposal was made by the General Assembly on February 14, 1946 at its first session, held in London.
      hi
    3. g1washntwn 18 February 2020 07: 28 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: fif21
      UN should be in Switzerland (neutral country)

      Neutral countries can not be in principle:
      and. Everyone has their own interest.
      b. All in one form or another participate in international life.
      at. Everyone wants to live, and live better (competition, struggle for resources and natural selection)
      1. fif21 18 February 2020 08: 58 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: g1washntwn
        Neutral countries can not be in principle:
        and. Everyone has their own interest.

        The United States impedes the normal functioning of the UN. Visa restrictions are an example. hi
  24. eaglet 17 February 2020 21: 55 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    In general, it is strange to read the author and comments ... the UN has never been the guarantor of the world, but was just a collection of talkers, with the exception of the "great powers", because this is not an organization governing the world, but just one of the main "platforms" where the "powers of this world" agreed on the fate of certain regions of the planet, taking into account the views of "interested parties". But after the collapse of the USSR, no one considers Russia a "great power" and therefore does not reckon with it, as by the way with China, so all our efforts to change the world agenda will not lead to anything ... at least for now ...
  25. Knell wardenheart 17 February 2020 23: 18 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The UN was an effective and rather influential institution at one time, but years of relatively effective decisions have played a trick - the organization has been mothballed, and in its desire to maintain influence has taken the path of pure ritualism - they gather as before, chatting as before, resolving as before - and with a sense of accomplishment wash their hands.
    The UN Security Council is a good example of this conservation - 3 countries of this Council are included in one block, which kakbe hints at the block principle of these guys making decisions, and the golden (and even the silver age) of France and Britain in terms of the power of these states is long gone, there are and more powerful, that military, economically, and more powerful states in the world or their regions (India, Japan, Brazil, the same Germany, the list could be continued) - however, Britain and France continue to be members of the Security Council "as an infused" - rightfully first shrunken priests, right father in founding - I do not know, but certainly not by the rules of logic.
    They will call it responsibility for peace?) Good responsibility is not only that the USA, Britain and France have long been in alliance with Germany and Japan (she is an “ally outside the bloc” but de facto one hell), so how much does that bloc have? 60% of the global arms market? 70%? How many operations started from “pigeons of the world” have been in the last 30 years? This does not mean that other countries are white and fluffy - BUT the ESSENCE of why Britain and France were wiping their pants in the Security Council - has long gone. There is a letter left, and it seems to have already thoroughly scared. So much so that there are no tools within the UN to consider this issue, even to justify the need for its consideration. And this is insanity as it is - and the organization is following the rut of the League of Nations, which has finished a good thing, as it were, as well.
  26. g1washntwn 18 February 2020 07: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: WiKi
    UN is considered universal forum.

    To me alone, the word “forum” was initially understood to understand that the UN is just a platform for discussing world problems, a supervisory, deliberative body, and not an overseer or an international police officer? The authority of the UN is collapsing just by those who want to be this world gauler; international opinion and the more so collective discussion on key world issues are hindering him. All that is needed is his “correct” opinion and strength (military, financial, informational, etc.) in order to impose this opinion on others.
  27. Million 18 February 2020 07: 52 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The UN is dancing to the tune of the United States. It's obvious
  28. Horn 18 February 2020 08: 06 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The UN awaits the fate of the League of Nations. Worthless organization today.
  29. oracul 18 February 2020 08: 29 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As they say: everything flows, everything changes. Nothing lasts forever. There are no founding fathers of the UN and no one can clearly answer the question: how did they see the distant future of the world. The mistake was made initially - the deployment of the United Nations in the United States, which never avoided bribery, power and economic pressure, and also the largest financial contribution. For this, a neutral and financially independent country was needed, for example, Switzerland. The system somehow held on while the USSR acted as a counterweight to the Anglo-Saxons. After its collapse, the UN turned into a weather vane, which always dances to the tune of the United States. The problem is that the reorganization of the UN in the current state of affairs, when the United States steers, will not lead to anything good. It is naive to think that an increase in the members of the Security Council, and even more so vesting them with the right to veto, will change something. International law today is nothing but the right of the United States to rule the world as a global hegemon, including gendarme functions. And this will continue until a power counterweight appears in the form of other countries capable of confronting the United States and putting them in their rightful place. It could be Russia, China, India. But the latter, while building up their economic and military potential, are still cowardly for a real confrontation between the USA and NATO. The explanation is historical background.
  30. iouris 19 February 2020 12: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    "The UN is a world government." And then whom does Soros and Chubais represent?