Is the UN going the League of Nations way?

The Israelis have attacked Gaza's civilian population under their military occupation and deprived them of the means of subsistence by destroying electricity generation, provision of water, a virtual blockade that hinders food supplies coming in. By systematically destroying infrastructure, it is forcing Gazans and Lebanese Arabs to live in a literal dark age where no modern amenity is available. Lebanon is again a killing field. Lebanese are forced to flee. Beirut is being reduced to rubble again. Where is the UN or any great powers that can prevent the wanton vandalism of Israel?

Israeli actions are shocking beyond belief. A state with questionable legitimacy is killing, maiming, imprisoning and depriving the civilian population of Palestine of all human rights by occupying the entire Palestine despite the UN having sanctioned only a small specified area in Palestine where the Zionists could establish a Jewish state. This UN action too was questionable. As the Iranian president has argued, Zionists had no claim on Palestine; their mythological-cum-religious traditions do not constitute a historical proof or claim.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The Israeli state was an aggression on Arabs, its whole career comprises aggressions against Palestinians and Lebanese. It acquired extra territory in 1948, 1956 and in 1967 it annexed large parts of Palestine, leaving some areas notionally for Palestinians but under its occupation. Military occupation of Palestine is 38 years old and Israelis have inflicted massive atrocities. While an invasion of Lebanon is continuing, one asks can no one do anything for the miserable victims, Palestinians and Lebanese?

Everyone knows why Israel is doing this. There are two reasons. One is that, thanks to western aid and support, Israel is far more powerful and technologically advanced than all Arabs. It has unstinted support of US and Britain, if not of others. Israel is an informal extension of the US mainland. By acquiescing in Israel's aggressions, the US has reduced the UN to its instrument; scores of General Assembly resolutions and many by the Security Council were vetoed by the US. The UN was rendered totally powerless to do anything for aggression's victims.

Soviets were a partial check on American power because they also had a veto. Some UN support could theoretically be had if the interests of Americans or Russians were not involved. Thankfully China, Britain and France have exercised their veto rights sparingly. But the Americans have slapped their veto all too frequently, mostly for Israel. The world is now a uni-polar one after Soviet Union disappeared in 1991. The US, the only superpower, believes in unilateral and pre-emptive military action. Its interests are worldwide. Israel is meant to activate American purposes in Middle East. This is the second reason why it transgresses international law as and when it pleases, talking of it when it suits. The way Americans have used the UN in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan and are now threatening North Korea and Iran is a sad commentary on the UN. The UN is not an agent moderating great powers' clout and enabling the weak to have their say. The UN has been used ruthlessly and often wantonly. It is surviving as a handmaiden of America. Is it worthwhile to continue having it?

There is talk of reforming the UN. Smaller nations want it to be a representative of the world's people. Its failings are familiar; it gives undue privileges to P5 and its decision-making is heavily influenced by them. Unless it is made more democratic, why waste time over so-called reforms, if they merely aim at bureaucratic efficiency. Specifically, the P5's veto is resented. Recent proposals of adding three new great powers to permanent membership of the Security Council, without veto is neither here nor there. If great powers retain their control over the world organization, no democrat would be interested.

There would be pained voices about UN's great utility. It performs well after a disaster. Its specialized agencies -- World Health Organisation, World Food Organisation and so forth -- have great usefulness; they have done good work. Some of these organizations are a carryover from the League of Nations. They can again be passed on to another world organization, if it can be set up. Or these bodies should stay as independent world bodies. Factually, UN cannot ensure international law being respected. It is far too dependent on the US for its financing and habitually suffers insults from American law makers. What is the point of having an ineffective UN?

This is not said with a light heart. One recognizes the importance and size of issues involved. Brute military power remains the only arbiter. Anyone who possesses huge military power can get away with whatever he wants no matter if some blabber on about international law, morality, economics, and all the other fine words. It is only the weak and the vulnerable that require the protection of international law. Earlier a veneer of civilization required a League of Nations. Earlier still international law fulfilled the needs of nascent capitalism. The powerful agreed to abide by international law to promote their trade interests. That included apparent respect for smaller nations' sovereignty.

The UN was an improvement on the League, because of its chapter on collective security; it was supposed to have a military teeth of its own to enforce international law and justice. Well, the great powers prevented the UN from having any teeth. They preferred a toothless tiger that ate paper and produced more paper. Ex-colonies used to find some security with one or the other superpower's support. Most of them gathered around men like Marshal Tito, Jawaharlal Nehru, Ahmad Sukarno, Gamal Nasser and set up a Non-aligned Movement. But it petered out with the death of its founders. One is told it still exists. But one of its major member and leader, India, is now a junior partner of the US with pacts binding them. What can be done?

Well, the world is still a fairly large place with a population of six billion. There are many middle ranking powers; some are emerging as such. Some former European great powers have shaped a union, the EU. It had the potential to emerge as a third superpower. In the end it is tamely being manipulated through enlarged NATO into a subordinate arm of America. The spectacle of EU echoing America on Iran, North Korea and ME is truly dis-spiriting.

Need remains of multi-polarity, especially after the Soviets' demise. New powers are emerging. Perhaps EU might yet realize its potential. Multi-polarity is a possibility. It is also desirable. The world needs more respect being shown to international law. Enforcement of international law would anyhow require a world body. If UN has not been equal to the task, let there be new one, though Americans would wish to preserve this UN as their stooge. Small nations would remain its members.

A possibility is that another organization is founded by those who want multi-polarity and a democratic world body that can impartially enforce international law and resolve crises. But saying it is not doing it. It is a huge task. How many would support the idea? One problem would be finance, perhaps also location of its headquarters. More funding has to be found than what small powers can pay. Bulk of the financing will have to be done by a few big powers. That will mean a defect. Need for a world body with some teeth is clear.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.