Can
The UN Bring Peace?
By Peter Taaffe
08 September, 2006
Countercurrents.org
After
much wrangling, a United Nations (UN) force has been assembled to act
as a 'buffer' in the 20-mile corridor between the Israel-Lebanon border
and the Litani River. Most people will probably breathe a sigh of relief
that the carnage which has been inflicted in Lebanon seems to have ended.
The hope is that now the prospect of war between Israel and Lebanon
will be banished, and the catastrophe of a wider Middle East war avoided.
However, the Lebanese people,
in their 'greeting' to UN secretary general Kofi Annan, do not appear
to share these illusions. He was met with protests by the angry residents
of Beirut's devastated southern suburbs, who were frustrated at the
“UN's seeming passivity in the face of the destruction wreaked
by the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah", according to the
London-based Guardian.
A UN force (UNIFIL) existed
before the war but did nothing to prevent the Israeli murder machine.
In one notorious incident,
18 Lebanese were killed in a southern Lebanese village by an Israeli
air strike. The victims had demanded sanctuary in a UN base but this
was refused by the UN commander, worried that there would be a repeat
of the 1996 incident when 100 people were killed who had taken refuge
in a UN base, during Israel's offensive against Hezbollah of that year.
A resident of West Beirut
summed up the general attitude towards the UN: “They are not good.
We do not trust them. They did not help the civilians in the south.
They are like an instrument in the hands of the Americans.”
However, illusions still
exist in Britain and elsewhere, particularly among idealistic workers
and youth who look towards the UN and its agencies as an 'international'
solution to the problems of war and conflict, of poverty and environmental
disaster. But the term 'United Nations', like that of 'international
community', is a misnomer.
In reality, the UN brings
together capitalist nations, in particular, the most powerful, who are
'disunited', especially when their fundamental interests are at stake.
Therefore, the idea that the UN can be 'democratised', is a bit like
asking for the bosses' organisation, the CBI, to be democratised to
allow workers a voice in running it.
Ineffectiveness
The origins and history of
the UN, as with its forerunner the 'League of Nations' prior to the
Second World War, demonstrates this. The League of Nations, Trotsky
wrote, “is not an organisation of 'peace', but an organisation
of the violence of the imperialist minority over the overwhelming majority
of mankind”. In 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact also purported to
outlaw war, yet it was signed by every major belligerent in the Second
World War.
The UN occupied a similar
role during the 'Cold War', a conflict, in the main, between US imperialism
and its allies, on the one side, representing capitalism, and the Stalinist
regimes of Russia and Eastern Europe, (bureaucratically planned economies
but with authoritarian one-party regimes), on the other side. When it
was convenient, the US would conduct imperialist wars under the flag
of the UN, such as in Korea.
On other occasions, it proclaimed
its 'unilateral' right to militarily intervene, as in the case of the
Vietnam War. At best, the UN was a forum for the settlement of secondary
issues.
But, with the advent of the
George W Bush regime and its neo-conservative cabal in the ascendancy,
the world's only superpower resorted to a 'pre-emptive' and unilateralist
policy. This naked assertion of US interests, combined with the pushing
aside and ignoring capitalist 'international institutions', brought
it into collision with European capitalism. When it did not get the
necessary support for the predetermined decision to attack Iraq, the
US did not hesitate to go outside the UN, organising the so-called 'coalition
of the willing', now the 'reluctant'.
With the disaster of Lebanon
superimposed on the catastrophe of Iraq, not to say the greatest domestic
natural disaster in US history, Hurricane Katrina, Bush has been forced
to back-pedal. He now takes a 'pragmatic' position towards the UN, pushing
Annan and sections of European capitalism to intervene and rescue him
from this quagmire.
However, even the unseemly
clash over precisely how many troops each nation would send to Lebanon
- France promising big forces but only coming up with 200 troops initially
- has shown how capitalist national interests take precedence over any
other considerations.
France has been reluctant
to take the lead of the UN force in Lebanon because it previously clashed
with Syria and Hezbollah which, according to France, were implicated
in the murder of the previous Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri.
Romano Prodi, the new Italian
prime minister, on the other hand, has been positively enthusiastic
about Italian troops 'taking the lead' in Lebanon.
This provides a convenient
'peacekeeping' diversion from the opposition of the Left to the presence
of Italian troops in Afghanistan and for the precarious overall position
of Prodi’s government; 'the love of the distant'.
Tony Blair is so discredited
by his poodle-like support of Bush, that he was not even consulted over
possible answers to the Lebanese imbroglio.
Lebanon 1982
However, engraved on the
memories of the Lebanese is the brutal experience of the past UN presence,
which has not prevented the bloody resumption of war. In 1982, after
the last full-scale Israeli invasion, a 'multinational force' was despatched
to Lebanon. A few months later, their barracks were blown up, killing
241 Americans and 58 French servicemen. Hence, the nervousness of the
French, this time, towards supplying troops.
US troops are completely
unacceptable to the Lebanese, given their role in backing Israel. The
latter has stipulated that no 'Muslim troops' should serve in the 'peacekeeping'
force, a further assertion of the national interests of the Israeli
ruling class over any 'peaceful' intentions.
But it is not just in the
Middle East that the ineffectiveness of the UN has been ultimately demonstrated
when determined armed combatants are set on war.
Witness the catastrophic
ethnic conflict in the Balkans. UN forces were deployed to 'hold the
ring' only after a period of exhaustion and terrible bloodletting, yet
the ethnic and national divisions remain.
Moreover, the UN force has
subsequently become mired in corruption, as well as notorious cases
of sexual harassment, mirroring the social diseases of the 'civilised
countries' which deployed them in the first place.
East Timor also exemplifies
the total ineffectiveness of the UN when confronted with serious conflicts.
A minimum of 1,500 murders were carried out by Indonesian soldiers and
pro-Jakarta militias during August 1999 when a vote for independence
was taken by the East Timorese. Despite UN prosecutors identifying Indonesian
generals, they have not been brought to book.
In June, this year, East
Timor fractured once more, with the army and police splitting and disintegrating,
with machete-swinging ethnic gangs burning down homes, looting, etc.
All of this went on as 'peacekeepers' patrolled the streets.
A leading East Timor human
rights activist commented: "I'm sure some of the people who [have
been] looting and burning houses are thinking, 'if nothing can be done
about the crimes of 1999, what can they do against me?'"
These facts could be met
with the argument that yes, the “UN is imperfect” but it
can be improved to serve all the peoples of the world. But the indisputable
fact is that the UN is ultimately in the grip of the US: "They
[the US] built the UN because, for all its inevitable flaws it serves
American interests" (Philip Stevens, Financial Times, 16/6/06).
The US financially underpins the UN and withdraws funds when this body
does not do its bidding.
This is shown over the unseemly
scramble for the ten elected seats on the UN Security Council. An investigation
by Harvard economists has shown the "important benefit to Security
Council membership: American money" (Financial Times, 31/8/06).
Aid to countries in the neo-colonial world from the US increases by
59% when they get a seat, "because their votes are worth something"!
Iranian crisis
Given the colossal shift
in hostility towards the US worldwide, Bush and American imperialism
now need the cover of the UN. This, however, does not alter its character.
The hypocrisy of the US, Britain and its allies is shown over the conflict
with Iran concerning nuclear weapons.
We oppose the acquisition
of nuclear power and weapons by Iran or any other country. But Iran
is surrounded by countries armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons:
Israel, which threatens Iran repeatedly, has 100 nuclear arms. Moreover,
the US gives its support and blessing to Pakistan, which has nuclear
weapons and is ruled by the dictator Musharraf. The US imperialist power
also particularly backs India, another nuclear power.
The Iranian president, a
populist politician, but still no friend of the working class of Iran
or elsewhere, was nevertheless correct when he recently stated: "In
the [UN] Security Council, which is supposed to achieve peace and security
in the world, Britain and the United Stated have special rights and
concessions. If another nation is involved in a conflict with them or
is oppressed by them, there is no recourse for it. International relations
has reached a point where the Americans and the British are imposing
their will on more than 180 nations around the world." (Guardian,
30 August).
As with all the other institutions
of world capitalism, the UN is a weapon in the hands of the rich, both
in the US and worldwide. Moreover, there is no “international
community”, in the sense that Bush and Blair argue, but a 'community'
of the ruling classes of the world: in each capitalist 'community' there
are 'two nations', rich and poor.
Working people would not
look to their bosses or the capitalists as a whole, their governments
or their parties, for solutions to their problems on a national scale.
Then why should this approach be abandoned on the international plane?
Double book-keeping is adopted
by even some who are socialists and who stand on the left, and yet enthusiastically
support the UN. But hard-headed capitalist commentators, like former
Tory foreign secretary, Douglas Hurd, recognise that the shine is coming
off their cherished institution: "The UN possesses less magic than
50 years ago" (The Independent).
It is necessary for the labour
movement to put an end to the charade of the UN as an instrument of
'progress', a means of avoiding war and famine. There are many well-meaning,
dedicated people who work for the UN, and its agencies, to help the
poor, to abolish disease and to rid the planet of the prospect of war.
But their efforts, no matter how well-meaning, are like taking a thimble
to empty an ocean.
The growing army of the poor,
an expression of naked neo-liberal capitalism, attests to this. Conflicts,
some of them of the most brutal kind, as the recent carnage in Lebanon
and Israel demonstrates, multiply, as do UN troops on 'peacekeeping
missions'. In fact, with increased demands for these troops - Darfur
is the latest - not just the US but the UN faces military 'overstretch'.
Internationalism
Only one force is capable
of ending this nightmare: the international working class and its organisations.
It is potentially the most powerful 'superpower' on the planet, stronger
than any army or government.
The only 'buffer' which can
provide a lasting solution to the problems of the Middle East is the
working class, in the first instance in Lebanon and Israel.
All foreign troops - whether
in blue helmets or not - should get out of Lebanon. Let the Lebanese
people decide their own fate in collaboration with the Israeli workers
and those in the Middle East, as a whole.
Why should a 'buffer' be
established only on conquered Lebanese territory? Why not on Israeli
territory? And why is their no 'international' buffer between Israel
and Gaza? The simple answer, of course, is that in the latter case it
serves the Israeli ruling class to be given a free hand to continue
to terrorise and imprison the Palestinians of Gaza.
If, however, the independent
movement of the working class of Israel linked up with the Lebanese
workers, and joined together with the potentially powerful working class
of the Middle East, the prospects for another conflagration in the area
would be banished, once and for all.
It is working-class and socialist
internationalism which is the answer to the problems of the peoples
of the Middle East and the world, and not the increasingly discredited
United Nations.
Peter Taaffe
is the General Secretary of Socialist Party (CWI),
This article was first published
in The Socialist, paper of the Socialist Party, England and Wales)
[email protected]
/ [email protected]