The UN​—Has It United the Nations?

“WHO will establish the enduring peace, and when?” Jehovah’s Witnesses asked those questions in the booklet called Peace​—Can It Last? published in 1942. Because of World War II the League of Nations was in a state of suspended animation, or ‘abyssed,’ as the Bible puts it. (Revelation 17:8) Thus the question was also raised, Will the League remain in the pit of inactivity?

Even at that early date, the Witnesses found the answer in the Bible. In the midst of World War II, the Peace booklet predicted: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” Did that forecast come true?

In April 1945 a conference was held in San Francisco to adopt a charter for the United Nations. In the book The Great Design, Cornelia Meigs describes what occurred when the meeting was due to open: “There was held a great and inspiring service in the Washington Cathedral, to pray for God’s help in the new undertaking. . . . It was notable at the Conference itself how many of the principal speakers, in their opening and closing addresses, invoked the aid of God in what they were setting their hands to do.”

Some wanted the Deity to be mentioned in the Charter. Others did not. The nations were not united, so “God” was left out. That division of opinion should have been an early warning of what was to follow. Nevertheless, the 51 founder nations signed the UN Charter, and the defunct League ascended from its ashes.

How has the UN differed from the League? And has it had more success in keeping the peace? Has it really united the nations?

The Secretary-General

The groundwork for a stronger and more effective organization was laid by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and their advisers. Those men represented the Big Three​—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union—​in conferences held in Moscow, Tehran, Yalta, and Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.). In fact, it was President Roosevelt who finally chose the name United Nations.

The UN’s General Assembly held its first session in January 1946. By February 1 the UN had appointed its first secretary-general, the Norwegian Trygve Lie. How did he view his appointment? “I had been nothing less than catapulted into the Secretary-Generalship of this new international organization, to preserve peace and promote progress in a world beset by unrest, poverty, and great-power rivalry. It was a challenge beyond my wildest dreams; but it was a nightmare as well. . . . I asked myself again and again, Why had this awesome task fallen to a labor lawyer from Norway?”

As with the old League, originally not too much was expected from the secretary of the organization. According to writer Andrew Boyd, the founders of the UN did not perceive how far reaching the secretary-general’s powers would be. As Boyd states in his book Fifteen Men on a Powder Keg: “They [the Big Three] never even glimpsed the possibility that the new world organisation’s chief official would have to run its international forces.” He adds: “They saw him as their creature, and a timid creature at that.”

Yet article 99 of the UN Charter clearly stated: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Italics ours.) As Trygve Lie wrote: “This Article confers upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations world political responsibilities which no individual, no representative of a single nation, ever had before.” Therefore, he was going to be a force to be reckoned with.

In fact, the influence of the secretary-general as a troubleshooter grew to the point that during the Congo crisis in 1961 Dag Hammarskjöld, who succeeded Trygve Lie, raised 20,000 troops and technicians from 18 countries to help end that conflict. In 1964 U Thant, who then held the position, was responsible for three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces.

The present secretary-general, Peruvian Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, commands UN peace forces that still operate in Cyprus and the Middle East. He also heads the Secretariat that now has a staff of about 7,400 at the UN headquarters in New York. Some 19,000 more work under the auspices of the UN in other countries. Yet, with all these human resources at its disposal, has the UN been effective in preventing wars over the last 40 years?

It Barks But Cannot Bite

The answer to that last question has to be yes and no. Twenty years after the League of Nations was founded in 1919, it went into its death throes when World War II erupted. Forty years after its founding, the UN is still on its feet. But while a third world war has not yet broken out, certainly many terrible wars have been fought and millions of people have suffered the consequences. The wars in Korea (1950-53), the Middle East (1948-49, 1967, and 1973), and Indochina/​Vietnam (1945-54 and 1959-75) immediately spring to mind. Logically the question is, Why was the UN incapable of preventing those wars?

The answer given by UN officials is that the organization is only as effective as its members allow it to be. Mr. Stefan Olszowski, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated in a letter dated May 9, 1985: “Even perfect decisions of the Organization cannot yield expected practical results unless and until they have the response and support in the political will of Member States. I trust that mankind will succeed in halting and reversing the course towards the precipice.”

Therefore, the UN can only be a persuasive force, not a police force with powers of arrest. It is really a world forum, a debating arena wherein the nations present their grievances​—if it suits them. As former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim wrote: “If they are not prepared to bring a problem to the [Security] Council, the United Nations can be of little help . . . The side-tracking or ignoring of the Security Council erodes its prestige and weakens its position . . . I regard this as potentially one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations.”

However, if nations do bring their problems to the UN, it is often to accuse and counteraccuse. The UN becomes a forum for political propaganda. That being so, you might ask, ‘How can the UN use its influence for peace?’

The answer given by UN officials is that the UN publicizes issues and tries to sway world opinion so that governments will respond. But in itself, it cannot take any armed action to prevent or impede a war. In that case, what about its own armed UN forces?

A UN publication answers: “These forces [if empowered by the Security Council or the General Assembly] typically assist in preventing the recurrence of fighting, restoring and maintaining order and promoting a return to normal conditions. To this end, peace-keeping forces are authorized as necessary to use negotiation, persuasion, observation and fact-finding. . . . While they are armed, they are permitted to use their weapons only in self-defence.” (Italics ours.) Thus their purpose is to dissuade others from conflict and avoid it themselves.

So, in reality, what does that make the UN? It turns it into a watchdog that is allowed to bark but not to bite. But at least a barking dog gives warning of trouble. Then why does the UN appear to be ineffective?

Where the Real Power Lies

According to Andrew Boyd, the problems of the UN were built into the Charter by the Big Three. He explains: “They bluntly told the smaller fry that they had already decided on a UN security structure which would be entirely controlled by the great powers. . . . There had been full agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that the proposed United Nations organisation was to be an instrument for the execution of decisions jointly made by the Big Three (with China and France as their privileged associates).”

Boyd continues: “Obviously, a system shaped by the Three themselves was not going to be one that involved them in surrendering any part of their vast military might to the control of the whole body of smaller states; or to that of the UN Secretary-General . . . or to the International Court or anybody else.” So how did they protect their monopoly of power and control?

Boyd explains: “The Three did not trust each other. The veto was to be their shield against each other as well as against the nose-count power of the lesser states.” What is the veto? It is the right to block a decision by a negative vote. It is reserved to the 5 permanent members (China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) of the 15-member Security Council. Thus, for a major Council decision to get through, it must have at least nine favorable votes including the concurring votes of the five. However, an abstention is not counted as a veto.

Thus, with the veto included, the UN Charter “reflected an expectation that the great powers were likely to quarrel.” With this kind of beginning, the “united” nations did not get off to a good start.

Nevertheless, here we are in 1985, and so far World War III has been avoided. The UN is still playing an active role in world affairs. Therefore, is it reasonable to believe that the UN could still be God’s way to peace?

[Box on page 6]

The UN Secretary-General and Some of His Problems

[Picture on page 4]

Trygve Lie asked, ‘Why has this awesome task fallen to me?’

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 5]

U Thant commanded three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 7]

Kurt Waldheim wrote about “one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations”

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 7]

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar heads a staff of some 26,000

[Credit Line]

UN photo