If modern techniques can be used to greatly lessen the destruction caused by catastrophes, then why do we not use modern methods to try to prevent another kind of destructive catastrophe, namely dictatorial systems in the world, which have been responsible for innumerable crimes against humanity?
History is full of examples of tyrannical dictators whose brutality was more detrimental to humanity than many natural catastrophes. I hope that in a world of solidarity, an international instrument’s main responsibility is to prevent access of political leadership in any country to a dictatorial system.
Of course such an idea may at first sound strange, it sounds like too much intervention from a foreign side which is mostly undesirable even for victims of dictatorial systems–especially that the dictatorial systems mostly hide themselves behind a mask of the most sacred nationalism to cover their anti-national nature.
The United Nations, as an international instrument existing for the cause of humanity, must therefore be reformed and reestablished in a way to stand for absolute freedom, prosperity, peace and justice for humanity. It must represent and reflect the interests of the world’s peoples, but not the states.
One may ask oneself the question: what should the UN. really do to reduce the destruction
The U.N. replaced the, incompetent, League of Nations. In 1945, its charter set forth those purposes that might have prevented the World War II and many other political catastrophes of humanity which had already happened.
However in all 19 chapters of the U.N. there is no impression where the word of people, in very meaning of freedom and dignity can be recognised. The word, people, is replaced by or understood as state.
It is no wonder since its foundation many other wars have happened between its state members and many political catastrophes went on under U.N. watch such as: the Korean War, Vietnam War, Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War, continuous occupation of Palestine and Arab territories by Israel, dramatic crimes by dictators, genocides, and finally the plague of the Islamic regimes as the new threat for humanity, all of which are shameful thorns in the eyes of the U.N., which was deserved to be baptised by General De Gaulle: “ce machin!”, this crap!.
But this crap, in the same development, pretends to be there for the maintenance of peace, security, and development and even more rudely pretends to be a beacon of freedom and equality for all people in the world. Strolling through its luxurious halls are representatives of the most despotic regimes such as the cruel thugs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, planning to wipe off the “Kufr”, blasphemy, from the face of the world, or the brokers of industry bosses of Neo-Liberalism, dealing lucrative policies for their states or companies.
The US coerce countries to support their international policies Bush describes these countries supporting him as the “coalition of willing”. Besides coercing, bullying and bribery a variety of incentives including:
Promises of aid and loan; promises of military assistance; threats to veto; leveraging the size of the US export market and the US influence over financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, are systematically used to reinforce the influence of the US over the U.N.
No wonder that one of the controversial organs of the U.N. is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which is another face of the International Monetary Fund, lurking, of course, in Washington, where it can take proper advantage of the third world.
All these financial institutions are in reality the economic weapons of the international Neo-Liberalism, which have an infamous record to exploit the third world in Asia, Latin America, Africa and Middle East, their loans are under the condition that the country uses the funds for specifically approved purposes. These imposed financed projects from so called benevolent agencies operate in accordance with neo-liberal principles, favouring no room for development of national economy, advanced technology, and self-autonomy of national economy. The obvious goal of these institutions is to install foreign enterprises which are a detriment to the local economy.
Currently the U.N. has no moral concept of how to effectively help humanity on its perilous path to freedom, prosperity, peace, and justice. The executive stance of the U.N. does not exert enough influence on behalf of the world’s peoples in order to tackle their problems.
The U.N. also has an organ called the Human Rights Committee (OHCHR), chosen by the U.N. Economic Social Council. It is absurd that its elected representatives are not from the suppressed peoples, who apparently are not in a legitimate judicial position to defend their own cause; unless the U.N. should prove that there is no access to the competent jurists to defend human rights abuses in their original countries. Despite the American representative being removed from the committee in 2001, there remain representatives from states with a record of human rights abuses such as Sudan and Pakistan. The committee is, however, a quasi-judicial body with dummy influence on the fate of the suppressed peoples. Critics and rights groups are pleading that this organ should not consider some issues as an internal matter, but a human issue.
The U.N. is dominated by Neo-Liberalists whose philosophy is to reduce the function of any state organisation including the U.N. itself, which by losing its power; it systematically undermines itself in a vicious circle. Therefore the U.N’s reactions are either insufficient or too slow, its resolutions are ignored and its seat in the U.S. makes its independence even more dubious.
The result is that in the consciousness of both freedom-loving and suppressed people the U.N. cannot easily lend itself to the equation of its concept with the ideals of humanity.
The General Assembly, in which states are represented, should be a body evenly composed by representatives of different peoples, both free and suppressed. In other words, if a state is not the democratic choice of its people, the people themselves are the only legitimate source to design their legal representatives with the help of the recognised democratic opposition.
The U.N., as one would expect by its philosophy, should set the standard for democracy, defining what a democratic state is and should avoid recognising non-democratic states, according to this given definition of democracy.
It has been historically proven that political dictators should not have been allowed to exercise their power.
In many cases these political rulers have a bearing on the fate of humanity more violent than an impact of any grave natural catastrophe– A natural catastrophe costs the lives of thousands of people and causes millions of dollars in damage, some dictators like Stalin, Pol Pot, Khomeini, Saddam or many others under witness of the U.N. have committed atrocities against humanity that have destroyed the lives of millions of people and have caused billions of dollars in economic loss to the world economy, a price which is exceedingly higher than the ending result of a natural catastrophe.
The U.N. has a judicial organ, dealing with the diverse conflicts between state members. Unfortunately here “state” stands for people. There is no organ describing the role of the U.N. in conflicts between state members with its suppressed people. Apparently the U.N. does not recognise a body of law defending the suppressed people, or perhaps because of influential and complex international relations it would not be allowed to set forth an appropriate body of law dealing with the case. It is an undesirable position for suppressed people, but desirable occasion for the suppressive dictators who escape justice.
It is duly expected by all human organisations that the U.N. gains the judicial and executive position to bring these political criminals into an international court before they commit future crimes.
In a judicial context, international laws recognised by the free international community and therefore adopted by the U.N. should be the main judicial patterns for all state members regardless of their religion and regarding the social factors. Any other form of religious judicial system must be declared voided and strictly banned.
Under any kind of dictatorship the ruling dogma always comes into conflict with the scientific facts. For example under Stalinism, contrary to the spirit of Marxism, the ruling dogma was in constant conflict with the scientific facts and artistic innovations describing the nature in “reactionary“laws. Human development was considered only on basis of social factors, biological factors of heredity were regarded in complete contradiction to Marxism; in opposition to Nazi Germany where the biological factors were considered as the only factors of human development. For the IRI the science and arts to a certain extent are regarded as “Shirk”, blasphemy, or moral degeneracy.
Within any dogmatic creed what remains is a generation with little sense of judgement and without principles or innovations of its own. It is a crime against the culture.
Despite having many organs dealing with cultural cases, the U.N. has not achieved to defend the scientific and cultural values of humanity against the fanaticism.
It is a cultural duty of the U.N. to set forth a network of education through all modern means in order to communicate the interests of suppressed people and safeguard the artefacts of humanity which can be destroyed within a dictatorial country.
It is widely expected by both suppressed and freedom-loving people that the U.N. uses modern techniques of communication, works with the democratically recognised opposition, and demands its state members to be in close contact with the suppressed peoples to help them and organise them with any means to regain their freedom.
The U.N. should be dedicated to providing all financial helps, broadcasting emission, and advices to the suppressed people in their struggle against their suppressive states.
In some cases, diplomacy fails, like many resolutions of the U.N. since 1990 on Iraq, which were imposing economic sanctions, but rather deteriorated the case of people than this of the regime.
Economic sanctions were creating more misery for most of Iraq’s population. In such a case, a regime by instigating nationalistic feeling in its own favour continues meanwhile suppressing its people. The U.N. should determine its role, Vis a Vis the violence against such people.
In the case that the state is criminal and is in armed conflict with its people and does not give up power. The U.N. is expected to determine what effective action should be immediately taken to quell the deteriorating security situation, to stop the massive killing, thus avoiding high human losses of people.
In order to reduce political catastrophes, so that a Stalin, Hitler, Mullah Omar, Khomeini or any other psychopathic fanatic cannot damage humanity, it is desired that psychological traits and general competence of candidates for all political key positions in all over the world be tested and confirmed by some appropriate method mandated by the U.N.
The U.N. should determine its responsibility in the case of dictatorial behaviour or corruption within its state members, it should be more effectively involved to keep the entire world away from wars, poverty, racism, terrorism, international inequality, and many other intense social and political problems which threat humanity, for all these it should confirm the mandates of authorities and control all key positions of political, military, and economical activities in all spheres of its member states. It should directly control all elections taking place in its member states.
Non-confirmed leadership of a country should not be delegated to the U.N.; its seat must be temporarily given to an elected delegation of its internationally recognised democratic opposition as long as the state has not been removed.
The issue of the U.N. has roots in the enigmatic problems of the capitalist world. If the U.N. is to be a useful instrument for all humanity, it should be reformed and rebuilt by some new institutional innovations to adapt itself to the needs of the world’s peoples, to re-establish a consensus among all freedom-loving peoples and suppressed peoples, to do its best in all fields to prevent the catastrophes of humanity. Its legitimacy is a question of its independence from the superpower of America and its destructive Neo-Liberalism, its “new world order” and also any other order of utopias. In the spirit of moral and social duty, related questions concerning humanity should overrule all lucrative purposes and its related political games. The UN should no longer be a flea market bargaining with the fate of people, but instead a tribunal to defend them.