The United Nations Insecurity Council
As long as the United Nations Security Council has permanent members, it will be bound to do nothing. As we know, evil will triumph, when good men do nothing. This means that the current UNSC system is doomed to fail, and thus evil will triumph. And that will cost Moldova its freedom.
I guess I was not more that 20, when I really opened my eyes for news from the outer world. Until then, my eyes were pointed at that little spot around me: not even called The Netherlands, but more “Albert’s bedroom”. I lived with my parents, and I didn’t care about the rest of the world.
“Opening my eyes” is not the same as “I could see”. I was just opening and blinking, and was overwhelmed with what I saw, or at least with what I thought I saw. At school, I was taught about the Dutch political system — sort of (their main focus was on the political parties that were more or less Christian, but that’s besides the point). The older I got, the more I learned about international affairs. In history lessons, I learned about the United Nations. But well, I never really paid attention at school.
Naïve thoughts about the United Nations
As a kid, I played the computer game Civilization. If you don’t know that game: the goal is to build up a civilization (hence the name), by building cities, invent things, fight against enemies, and cooperate with allies (very short description). I always started as a “chieftain”, and invented the most basic things like metallurgy, irrigation and masonry, later rail roads and rocketry. And very late in the game, you can choose to invent the United Nations. When you achieved that, there was no more war, only peace. How poetic. Now naïve.
Of course, I knew that was a game. In real life, United Nations did not prevent wars. As I was 20 then, the Yugoslav Wars were still going on. Sadly, a war opened my eyes, and made me realize there is more than my little spot in front of my computer, in my parent’s house. And so, I learned, that the United Nations has a department, they call the United Nations Security Council: a group of representatives from several countries, that are member of the United Nations. I found out (not that it’s a secret or a difficult subject) there are 15 members, of whom 5 are permanent, while the others are temporary: they are member for a brief period of 2 years. The permanent members are lifetime members (duh). But there is another difference: the permanent members have veto rights.
The Veto rights
Even though 14 members (4 permanent and 10 temporary) say “yes” to a resolution (usually a proposal to intervene), the last permanent member can say “no”, put down a veto and … the resolution is being denied and will not be executed.
The five permanent members at this moment are
· United States
· France
· Great Britain
· China
· Russia
Russia took over from Soviet Union when the latter one collapsed in 1991.
Now, please take a look at the list of denied , that has been put on Wikipedia, and scroll down to the bottom. Then, scroll slowly up, and take notice of the last column. The first 57 veto’s came from Soviet Union. No other member put down a veto.
Repetivitve abuse of the UNSC
The first veto in the Security Council was put down on February 16th, 1946. And not before October 30th, 1956, more than 10 years later, another member put down a veto. Yet more interesting is the fact, that the first veto that was put down, was actually the THIRD resolution at all! The first one was just an administrative resolution for founding the structures of the Council. Surprisingly, the Soviets did not turn down the second resolution, even though that was about the Soviets to relinquish occupied Iranian soil. There are several possible reasons why Stalin didn’t use his veto right. The most popular is, that the United States put a heavy pressure on Stalin — that would proof the Council is working. But it also could be, that the Soviet Union simply didn’t realize how huge their power by Vetoing is, or they just wanted to play nice in the first actual resolution. They showed some power afterwards, by not executing the resolution immediately. But from the third proposal, they used their veto a lot.
And that is what set the standard: The Soviet Union quicky found out, that everything they say, can be used against them in future, so any case that had similarities with their worldview were turned down: they won’t do anything against states and countries that can be considered friends or allies, on some level.
So, when other communistic countries were under diplomatic siege, the Soviets simply blocked any resolutions. Same goes for situation, where the Council should greenlight an action that should stop illegal occupation of a country’s soil by some other country. Or if a country has made a decision that threatens the world — but the Soviets possibly could do the same in future. Yes, the Soviets have been planning with the end in mind — at least the end they pursued. The Chinese quickly copied the Soviet strategy in the UNSC, and even USA used it to hold a hand above Israel.
And that is the whole problem with the United Nations Security Council: egoistic ideology blocks the world from becoming secure. Almost from the start, when I learned about the UNSC, I called it the United Nations Insecurity Council (in Dutch, as I was living in Holland at the time: Verenigde Naties Onveligheidsraad, and in Danish, as I moved to Denmark in 2003: Forenede Nationers Usikkerhedsråd.
Although, there might be a perspective
Even though I haven’t been expressing myself publicly, the last few years, I always kept my opinion about this Insecurity Council. A few weeks ago, I wrote about it on a Dutch news and discussion site. For the first time since I got myself an opinion on this Insecurity Council, I got a reaction, that gave me some perspective. Someone told me: The UNSC is not created to find solutions on problems but to keep parties talking with each other.
OK, if that is true, then my opinion perhaps is not fair. And I have to admit, that I have been thinking about that in a few weeks. Until Russia, who took over from Soviet Union, vetoed against a resolution about its own invasion of Ukraine. Because that is easy: it is not an invasion until the Insecurity Council says so. And they will not, as long as the aggressor in the war is a permanent member. So: The United Nations cannot do anything, because they need a unanimous accept from the Insecurity Council.
A tremendous match of chess
Well played, Russia, well played. You’ve set the United Nations chess mate even before the game started. The NATO has no rights to intervene without the United Nations. Russia needs Ukraine to make a direct route to Moldavia — and Ukraine is on the brink of becoming a NATO member. So, Russia needs to obstruct Ukraines ambitions toward a NATO membership as much as possible. Else it will never be possible to have a direct path to Moldavia. And that’s what Putin wants. Ukraine is just a bridge, just like Denmark was to the Germans under World War II.
What will happen if Putin succeeds
Well, then the next country that is being attacked is Moldova. Putin will use exactly the same arguments (read: lies) on attacking Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine:
· They are our brothers. They are suppressed by an American puppet government
· We need to liberate [….] (fill in: Donetsk / Crimea in Ukraine, South Ossetia in Georgia, Ichkeria in Chechnya and Transnistria in Moldova.
· The whole country is actual Russian, since it was Russian once
· They will welcome us as heroes
· There are lots of Nazis in those countries, we need to kill them
· It’s a peacekeeping operation
· It’s not a war, it’s just a military operation
· NATO is a threat
And If the resistance is too big, then new old lies will be told: Americans are the actual enemies. And the common Russians? They will eat it, accept it and embrace it. Because they are dumb. Not that it’s their fault. But that, I’ve been writing about before.
