UN still united?
AZ, Dhaka
Some powerful and big rouge members of the United Nations (UN) have dismembered the mighty UN into a sort of widowhood. Such truancy has encouraged global terrorism, which is now hitting through back door (a non-confrontational tactics), and unofficially doing the job on UN, using a great deal of violence than acceptable. Peace-keeping assignments are showing new faces. Necessity being the mother of invention, how to save the UN, (if at all it is necessary)?Why the huge, top-heavy UN system is being maintained for doing practically nothing, at least in taming the big rouge nations? Like the earlier League of Nations after the first world war (1914-18), the life-span of UN is ebbing away, drop by drop since the first Iraq war. Its impotency is pathetic to watch. It has its own Security Council, but its definition and modalities are warped. Why the smaller members should continue to pay the UN subscription when there are no political solutions to local conflicts? Is the veto system still valid in this fast changing world? UN is behaving like a comedian on the stage, for occasional laughs and titter from starving bellies. The grass widow has no grazing ground. Appeal to whom to revive the UN, or draw the curtain? This debate is now due and very much topical. The philosophy of pre-emptive strike has turned human morals upside down. Guns cannot provide political solutions, as we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, and other places. Every man has his shadow. The USA's shadow is Al-Qaida! The substance and the shadow cannot be separated (philosophically speaking).
|
|
