 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
Signs of the Times Australia / NZ edition — lifestyle, health, relationships, culture, spirituality, people — published since 1886 |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Signs of the Times Australia / NZ edition — lifestyle, health, relationships, culture, spirituality, people — published since 1886 |
||||||||||
The practice of politics injects realism into philosophical idealism. And global politics can make an utter mockery of idealism. Consider the idealism behind the formation of the United Nations Organisation (UN).
On the June 26, 1945, 51 nations signed on as charter members of the UN. Six languages were recognised as “official,” and New York chosen as its headquarters. It comprised a Security Council, a General Assembly and a Secretariat.
The Security Council is to maintain “peace and security” with some influential members nominated as “permanent” and granted veto power in recognition of their status. The remaining members are elected from the General Assembly in rotation. The Security Council has power to enforce its resolutions. The General Assembly comprises all UN member nations on the basis of one nation, one vote. Working committees oversee issues of global concern. Unlike the Security Council, the General Assembly powers are recommendatory only. A Secretary-General who would function as a “world moderator” governs the Secretariat.
The UN struggled to maintain a global profile. Its weakness was due to the way in which the superpowers cynically used client member-states of the General Assembly to bully or score points off each other. This manipulation of lower-ranked states changed somewhat with decolonisation through the 1960s. By the 1980s, General Assembly members were no longer beholden to any Security Council power in particular.
The US appeared aggravated by this democratisation of process, as the more universal and non-aligned character of the UN took effect. Rather than focusing on the Cold War between Washington and Moscow, the General Assembly set its own agenda, somewhat in terms of North-South relationships—the advanced, industrialised nations and the struggling nations predominantly in Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas.
Of more concern to the Assembly was redressing the imbalance of wealth and living standards between North and South (see Trends, May 2003). The voices of political minorities and minority nations have pushed in recent decades for a newer world order that will address matters of survival—drought, endemic warfare, ethnic/racial bigotry, economic exploitation and such.
Despite occasional absurdities, such as its 1975 declaration of Zionism as a “form of racism” and ineffectual leaders, the UN has met with relative success on other fronts—thankless and precarious peace-keeping; imposing sanctions (often symbolic gestures to amplify a pariah state); facilitating last-ditch diplomacy; and in highlighting and treating problems through its specialist agencies, such as UNICEF, UNESCO and UNHCR. Related institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, have had mixed receptions.
The present status of the UN is also a matter of contention, but more and more, international opinion is shifting to regard it, flawed though it is, as an essential institution for the 21st century and beyond.
Two main reasons for this are that, first, there is no other forum for the world’s weakest and poorest nations and, second, in the face of US and EU global domination, no world power other than the UN can offer an alternative source of policy guidance and political nurture.
To denounce the UN, as people often do, is to overrate the appeal of realism and underrate the power of idealism. But to bomb its headquarters in Iraq and kill one of the UN’s most effective peace-makers (as I write), is to commit a truly pointless, evil action. It is unambiguously wicked. I say this because, unlike a nation-state that has itself bombed or terrorised and is in turn, victimised, the UN is not a body politic committed to anything other than reordering the world toward a more equitable and peaceful state.
Sergio Vieira de Mello embodied this idealism as UN chief in Iraq. He previously worked to bring about the sovereignty of East Timor and, as a special envoy, interceded in Fiji’s Speight crisis to bring a peaceful resolution to that situation.
Sadly, realism of the worst kind has again made its presence felt in idealism. Idealists are saddened, but we keep faith in the day when the ideal world will be real—just as Jesus promised.
Extract from Signs of the Times, November 2003.
Home - Archive - Topics - Podcast - Subscribe - Special Offers - About Signs - Contact Us - Links
Copyright © 2006 Seventh-day Adventist Church (SPD) Limited ACN 093 117 689
Unassociated
advertisement:
This article comes from a
regular column in
Signs
of the Times.
