Useless Nonentity

What is the reason of being of the ‘UN’ today, if it no longer represents, or seems to respect, its fundamental calling, that of united nations?
Originally the UN defended an apolitical ideal: the interests of the world in terms of peace and stability. It would have been its duty to help persecuted minorities, ancient cultures that appear to have become expendable, virtually programmed by the establishment to disappear. An ideological, sectarian establishment that the UN seems to have become subservient to.

At one period in history the UN was administered by people of clearly defined principles, of solid integrity. Representatives capable of reasoning lucidly, in order to arrive in establishing correct, impartial, decisions.
The UN's 1947 proposals regarding Jerusalem, the Palestinian question, and the timeless aspiration of the Jews were exemplary. Reasonable enough for the Jewish authorities to fully accept them. The Arab League however, categorically rejected them.
Why was it that the UN accepted that the Arab League decide for a people who are obviously the first concerned? Even as late in history as 1947, had the Palestinians no one of any authority to represent their own interests and make decisions directly regarding their own future? So by this rejection of a plan that ideally should have satisfied everyone for posterity, the UN allowed the Arab League to open Pandora’s Box for posterity. And since then the UN seems to think it’s appropriate not to condemn those who rejected its proposals, but those who accepted them...
By adopting this incoherent attitude, the UN persistently fuel a conflict, and condone terrorism. It allows licence to listed terrorist organisations (Hamas and Hezbollah) to perpetuate a futile war, or a cynical, lucrative, pantomime of war. The UN would thereby also condone the conditioning of children to hate and kill, to insure that future generations will continue this pointless conflict, instead of striving for a better life.

Compare what Israel has achieved in 70 years to what the Palestinians have accomplished not only since 1948, but ever since the Bar Kokhba rebellion of the Jews against the Roman occupation of Judea leading to their massacre and expulsion (132-136 CE).
Palestrina is an ancient city east of Rome. The Romans renamed their colonised, Mideast provinces 'Palestrina Syria'. Naturally this didn’t erase the clear historic, patrimonial evidence supporting the legitimate claim of the Israelis. But had the 'Palestinians' ever taken the trouble of establishing something during cette nuit des temps, not necessarily a State, but something tangibly important enough for them to identify with, the UN would never have been able to make the 1947 proposals in first place.

This issue is a nucleus issue. It has helped determine international terrorism and the rebirth of regressive radicalism. A sort of ridiculous rehash of the Crusades. The responsibility of the UN in this development is enormous, and virtually complicit. Everything negative regarding the incoherent, ‘monotheist religious differences’ that has taken place since 1948, essentially stems from the Arab Leagues rejection of the 1947 proposals. This includes all the Arab-Israeli wars, the Beirut bombings, the political and social deterioration of Lebanon, the radicalisation of Iran, the rise of the Taliban, the assassination of Massoud, and the world trade centre attack, etc., etc. The list is never ending. A constant false pretext for dissension and war.

Lebanon was once the multicultural jewel of the Middle East. Exemplary of how multiculture succeeds when it comes about naturally, and when a nation is well governed and faithful to its root identity and culture. A root identity that is also generally respected and democratically defended by its multicultural population.
The Arab-Israeli wars changed all that. Since then the influx of Palestinian refugees, largely represented, or exploited, by the Hezbollah, has bought hate and frustration to Lebanon, and the jewel faded. It lost its magic glow. There remains only nostalgia for the few people left, old enough to remember how it once was.

ISIS is another negative consequence that the UN helped to foster by its partisan politics. What has the UN done to counter ISIS? What has the UN ever done to try to find a solution to end the Syrian war? What has the UN done to help the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian Kurds? What has the UN done to help the Yazidis, obliged to camp in difficult conditions for almost four years now after their villages were destroyed by ISIS, their women taken as sex slaves, and many of their men folk massacred? What is the UN funding essentially used for? Would it not be commendable and constructive, for example, to use some of it to help rebuild the destroyed villages of the Yazidis so they can at last return to their homes? What has the UN done to counter the persecution and atrocious massacre of Christians in the Middle East? How come one can even view videos of such horrors, but shamefully the UN is conspicuous by its absence? Where is the UN when Churches are being burnt down and six little girls were used by Boko-Haram to blow themselves up killing forty people the night of the 16th June, 2018? Where is the UN when mafiosi traffickers are ripping off migrants before they risk their lives trying to cross the Mediterranean in flimsy, floatable means before 'hopefully' being picked up by NGO ships handsomely paid for perpetuating an ignoble, lucrative business that comes down to aiding and abetting modern day slavery, if not an inane ideology pushed by EU neo-Marxists? Can one hear the angry voices of UN members, the noble defenders of human rights, expressing their outrage for the irresponsible encouraging of this business, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of would-be migrants from North Africa who end up drowned in the Mediterranean for nothing more than a cynical Sorosian, Merkelian and Junckerian ideological whim?
Where is the UN regarding the blatant, bellicose, expansionist objectives of Turkey under Erdogan? How come Turkey seems to be accorded the right to make incursions into Syria and Iraq on its incredible Kurd hunting sprees, especially when the latter are the ones who have been facing up to ISIS for everyone's benefit?

No doubt the UN has its own 'priorities’. After all there are other 'human rights' issues, including those of subjugated women. Who better could contribute more towards their emancipation than Saudi Arabia, for an example of an incongruous UN choice?

Such limited criticism that only concentrates on the most blatant issues, when the UN must otherwise be so preoccupied with many other important ‘priorities', might be thought totally unjust, naive, and ill-informed.
If this is so, then naturally the UN would be able to point this out in the most convincing way.

In the meantime, until one is appropriately corrected, and perhaps even reassured, it would seem to be another sad sign of our times that the UN no longer has any credibility. If such is the case, 'Useless Nonentity' might be considered a more appropriate term than 'United Nations'.

Text and image © Mirino. June, 2018

Winter on Fire

'Winter on Fire, Ukraine's fight for Freedom', is the title of a documentary directed by Evgeny Afineevsky, an award winning film director, interestingly of Russian descent.
I watched this film a few days ago. It alludes to the 'Euromaidan', the 93 day uprising of the Ukrainians against the elected government's decision not to sign the agreement to join the EU.

Although it's only one side of the coin, it's a precious, detailed reference to that side.
It seems to me that there are two main observations that one can make, without going further into the subsequent conflict between pro Russian separatists, and pro EU Ukrainians, about which the film doesn't go into.

The first observation is that had the police not been authorised to use such extreme brutality, perhaps the demonstrations could have led to constructive negotiations, and consequently Yanukovych could still be the President of Ukraine. The consequences of the 'Euromaidan' are tragic. All more so because they are not particularly constructive.
The second observation is that throughout the demonstrations, immense patriotism was expressed. The national anthem was constantly sung, there was a great deal of waving the national flag. The clergy of divers religions joined together in support of the movement, and there was an enormous surge of national pride.

With regard to the first observation of police brutality, only a reckless fool would have authorised such a shameful, disproportionate and unjustified reaction. One therefore wonders if Yanukovych was betrayed by his own forces of security, or if he was really that desperate and irresponsible to authorise such a ruthless, and often murderous show of force.

Regarding the second observation, it seems to me to be cruelly ironic that whilst the young protestors long for 'European freedom' and reveal their patriotic zeal, the EU appears to be surreptitiously pushing for a nationless federation, using mass immigration of Muslims as an eventual catalyser to bring about what the club seems to believe will be a utopic, cultureless, conformity. And whilst this is being pushed, the freedom that the Ukrainians were ready to die for, is being trampled on by the summary arrest and imprisonment of an individual who dares to criticise what is indeed highly criticisable, and the media is summoned to be silent about it.

In short, whatever tyranny, real or imagined, that the Ukrainians wished to escape from, is apparently being fostered in the very Europe that they long to be a part of.


Text © Mirino. Image and title, with thanks to the author. June, 2018