-
Peace and Security—From What Source?The Watchtower—1985 | October 1
-
-
Peace and Security—From What Source?
WHILE the United Nations has performed valuable services in some fields, anyone who keeps up with the news has to admit that it has so far failed in the area of peace and security. This is openly admitted by the organization’s most ardent advocates.
Thus, back in 1953, only eight years after its birth, Dag Hammarskjöld, then secretary-general, confessed: “Where our predecessors dreamed of a new heaven, our greatest hope is that we may be permitted to save the old earth.” Twenty-six years later, C. William Maynes, a United States assistant secretary of state, was forced to admit: “The main purpose of the Security Council and the General Assembly was the maintenance of international peace and security. . . . You have evidence that the organization has failed in its central purpose.”
How Relevant?
The truth is, most of the outstanding decisions affecting peace and security during the past 40 years have been made largely outside the United Nations. In 1982, Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar bemoaned the fact that “this year, time after time we have seen the Organization set aside or rebuffed, for this reason or for that, in situations in which it should, and could, have played an important and constructive role.” Why is this?
Some point to the organization’s spectacular growth in membership as a reason. The 51 original members increased to more than 150, each with an equal vote in the General Assembly. Yet some of these nations are very small. Thus, the island nation of Saint Christopher and Nevis, the 158th nation to join the organization, has a population of fewer than 50,000, yet it has an equal vote with China, whose population is close to one billion. True, this arrangement gives smaller nations the opportunity to be heard; but it hardly encourages the larger powers to take the organization’s decisions seriously.
A second problem is touched on by Shirley Hazzard: “Powers of compulsion were not invested in the United Nations Organization, except in so far as they might reside in the very members most likely to need compelling.” In other words, the organization can make decisions, but for the most part it cannot enforce them. Weighty world problems are regularly discussed at length. Resolutions are solemnly passed—and then forgotten. In 1982 the UN secretary-general was moved to deplore the “lack of respect for its decisions by those to whom they are addressed.”
These are organizational problems—and there are others mentioned by analysts. But there are deeper, more serious reasons why the United Nations has failed.
The Deeper Problems
“It then seemed possible to establish, as a first priority, a system for maintaining international peace and security under the provisions of the Charter,” said Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, recalling the idealism of the founders of the organization. “What has happened to that majestic vision? It was soon clouded by the differences of the major Powers. . . . Moreover, the world turned out to be a more complex, far less orderly place than had been hoped.”
In fact, there was never any chance that the United Nations would bring peace and security. The task was just too difficult. The secretary-general’s comments remind us of the words of the prophet Jeremiah: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jeremiah 10:23) Humans, with their limited wisdom and abilities, will never be able to solve the problem of bringing peace and security for all.
The secretary-general said that the founders of the United Nations discovered the world to be “more complex” than they had hoped. There is a basic reason for this situation, and apparently they were not aware of it. But the apostle John explains it thus: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) The Bible tells us that today “the wicked one,” Satan, is causing “woe for the earth,” “having great anger.” (Revelation 12:12) The grim reality of Satan and his influence foredoomed the United Nations’ efforts to bring peace before the organization even got started.
Remember, too, that the United Nations organization is a child of this world and thus inherits its characteristics. The weaknesses, evils, and corruption that characterize the individual nations inevitably also exist in the United Nations. Alexander Solzhenitsyn was quoted as saying in 1972: “A quarter of a century ago, with great hopes from all mankind, the United Nations Organization was born. Alas, in an immoral world it too grew up immoral.” The Bible warns: “‘There is no peace,’ Jehovah has said, ‘for the wicked ones.’” (Isaiah 48:22) An “immoral” organization can never bring peace and security.
What About Peace and Security?
So, will the declaring of 1986 to be an “International Year of Peace” make any difference? That is highly unlikely, since the aforementioned problems are completely unsolvable by humans. The “Year of Peace” is no more likely to bring mankind closer to peace and security than the “Year of the Child” in 1979 improved the international lot of children or the “International Women’s Year” in 1975 made the world a better place for women.
-
-
Peace and Security—From What Source?The Watchtower—1985 | October 1
-
-
Jesus’ prophecies, coming to us from almost 2,000 years ago, have provided a more accurate description of world conditions than the optimistic statements made at the birth of the United Nations 40 years ago. The failure of that organization to find a “way out” only serves to highlight the accuracy of the Bible’s predictions. Truly, in the words of Isaiah, ‘the very messengers of peace weep bitterly’ in frustration at their failures.—Isaiah 33:7.
This highlights a final reason why the United Nations can never succeed in bringing peace to the earth. It is going about it in a way completely opposed to God’s way. According to Jehovah’s stated purposes, peace will come, not by a uniting of this world’s nations, but by their being completely replaced by God’s Kingdom. (Daniel 2:44) Dag Hammarskjöld said he was working to “save the old earth.” If by this he meant the present world system comprised of independent political nations, then his hopes were doomed to failure from the outset. The fact is, the “old earth” has to give way to a new system. “The world is passing away.” (1 John 2:17) Nothing can save it, not even a United Nations organization.
-