Where is the UN?

[sahi_muslim]

Assalaamoalaikum
Abid Ullah Jan
Where Is The UN?


All the major Western armies are marching towards Somalia without even informing the UN. American bombers are bombing villages in Yemen without a UN's approval. Despite UN resolutions, no efforts have been made to resolve the crisis between India and Pakistan. Instead, India has been given a green signal to humble Pakistan's offensive capabilities. Palestinians are being forced to fully submit to the Israeli will. The US doesn't want any UN involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And village after village is being flattened by the US war plans in Afghanistan for which there is no provision under any of the UN resolutions. How does the UN become so irrelevant with regard to some issues and how suddenly every word of its resolutions become a sacred text from heavens is beyond comprehension of the common man in the Muslim world.
These days the UN seems to be non-existent -- existent, however only for enforcing sanctions against Iraq, or convening a meeting on the Palestinian issue only for the US to veto it. The UN was very effectively doing its sanctions enforcement job till the fall of the Taliban government. And now the role of Security Council has been further reduced to approving freeze on the assets of Pakistani scientists and industrialists. What a pity!
While asking the UN to approve international observers for the occupied Arab territories, the Palestinian officials were fully aware of the fact that their entreaty was an exercise in futility. Similarly, Pakistani officials indicated a few times they want the UN to diffuse tensions with India. But deep in their heart, they know that like many other powerless nations they have no other option. Pakistan cannot respond to the Indian accusations the way the US would respond to anyone threatening it the way the India browbeat Pakistan. Palestinians cannot respond the way the US would if someone occupy its land and subjugate its people and then tell them to fully submit yourselves before we discuss your future. The only other saviour that comes to mind of such helpless nations for complaining about the violations of international law by the US sponsored regimes is the UN, whose inability to act on behalf of the weak calls into question the significance and relevance of its existence.
The weak nations believed that with the end of the Cold War, the UN would finally become free of the super-powers deadlock that had prevented it from carrying out its main purpose. The UN itself, however, became the first casualty of the post-Cold War era. The UN was exploited to escalate the Persian Gulf conflict and this was presented to the world as the beginning of a "new world order," where the UN would play the leading role in ending the conflicts of the world. If we look at the composition of the Security Council and the US actions since 1990, we find that the Security Council that has become an extension of the State Department does not in any way reflect a universal purpose. In the post September 11 era, the only universal purpose before it seems to be the total dominance of the US, which seems to have obtained a licence to attack any country, overthrow any government and impose any kind of set it may like. How naïve it is to expect that no one in the Muslim World understands that the UN has enforced a plan hatched in Washington on Afghanistan in Bonn. Everyone understands but the time is not ripe for saying adios to the UN.
Recent events have proved that the UN not only lacks the capability to handle critical issues but also it has become a hostage to the US blackmail. It has lost its envisaged utility. The UN has been perfectly sidelined on the issue of Middle East conflict. It doesn't have a say in the US and British affair of maintaining sanctions against Iraq and subjecting it to the regular military strikes. Kashmir has been put on the back burner and it has no role except endorsing NATO's action in former Yugoslavia. The UN inspectors spied for the US and the UN has given qualified support to the Algerian military-backed government in its efforts to combat the opposition forces. Can we expect any good of the UN any more?
The US is not going to listen to the complaints of Muslim masses any more. It would keep on dropping missiles on our soil and using our airspace and territorial waters against our will. The UN cannot do anything about it because the puppet regimes have authorised the US to do so against the will of their people. Proponents of the UN are quick to point out its successes in the fields of health care, education, human rights, and in the political domain. But there is a long list of failures - Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Bosnia, Kashmir and Angola along its failure to act in Rwanda, Burundi and Algeria. By the end of 1993, 53 wars were being waged in 37 countries across the globe. One of the main reasons for its failure is its undemocratic structure that can bring its doom sooner than expected.
Muslims are the most disadvantaged and the least represented lot on the face of the earth these days. Most of the problems around the globe are due to their lack of voice and international support for their just causes - so just that numerous UN resolutions are pending for implementation. Giving any representation to the Muslims does not even appear in the contemporary debate. There was no need for it, provided all the issues were not related to the Muslims and in all cases they were not the victims. The much vaunted democracy runs out of gas at the doors of the UN. No one argues that a democratic UN would necessarily see a more effective world body; better able to serve the interests of all its constituent members. A good yardstick with which to measure the level of democracy inside the UN is to analyse it in terms of broad-baseness, transparency and accountability.
The key areas for reforms are: the democratic appointment of the Secretary-General; the lack of representation in the Security Council; the need for some form of accountability in the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly; the necessity to limit American influence inside the world body. Those who dominate the UN argue that UN is a supranational and supra legal entity and there can be no talk of democratising the UN in an undemocratic world; after all the UN is simply a reflection of existing power inequities. If the UN is simply a reflection of current power realities, why does the Security Council still reflect the power balance at the end of World War II? Why is the Islamic World as a whole not represented in the Security Council with the same right to veto as comparatively less powerful states such as the United Kingdom? The missing word "united," from the Muslim world is probably making the whole difference.
Of course, the world body should reflect the prevailing power imbalances, as one of the major failings of the League of Nations was that it did not mirror the changing global political balance in the 1920s and 1930s. The question is: For how long would the US and its allies maintain and sustain the puppet regimes of their liking in these Muslim states to suppress the will of 1.2 billion people? A totally democratic UN certainly is utopian. However, democratising the UN is one of degree, rather than of kind. Democracy is not an end in itself; rather a more democratic UN would be a means to render the UN more effective in any given crisis situation. If the Muslims do not see the UN addressing their problems in no other way than distributing blankets and food after the US bombing and sanction, they would have no other option but to decide quitting it altogether and live without its gifts and benedictions.
The undemocratic form is nowhere more clearly evident than in the make-up of the most important UN organ, the Security Council (SC), which bears the chief responsibility for maintaining international peace and is the only body with the power to make decisions binding on all member-states. But it remains a prisoner of the past in its permanent membership that reflects the balance of power in 1945. If the world wants the UN not to follow the League to Nation to its grave, this issue needs to be addressed on the urgent basis.
International stratification is never rigid and permanent, and states are upwardly or downwardly mobile. A static permanent membership of the SC clearly undermines the logic of the status, thereby diminishing the authority of the organisation and breeding resentment not only in claimants to the ranks of the great powers but those who are suffering at the hands of the permanent five.
The big five contend that the SC is organised on the principles of responsibility and capacity, not representation. This argument is fallacious in the extreme: where is the show of that responsibility in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Who paid any attention to the UN resolutions on Kashmir? Who is exploiting the UN resolutions of terrorism and using them for some other foreign policy objectives. These are not the examples of responsibility. As for the capacity is concerned: Why is Islamic World as a bloc not represented in the SC, while countries like Britain and France are?
The UN was supposed to act more or less in the interests of its global constituency. At present this would necessarily mean a UN freeing itself from US domination. Instead of allowing the US to take unilateral actions and violate others' sovereignty, under Article 47 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN a military staff committee is supposed to be established in order "to advise and assist the Security Council on all questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, ... and the regulation of armaments and possible disarmament."
The military staff committee needs to be made up of the "Chiefs of Staff of the Permanent Members of the Security Council or their representatives and is to be made responsible under the Security Council for the strategic direction of any armed forces placed at the disposal of the Security Council (A 47.2 -- A 47.4, Chapter V11 of the Charter of the UN)." In other words, any enforcement action undertaken by the UN requires a military staff committee to be established which would be in charge of any military action embarked upon. Under this explanation the Gulf war was illegally authorized and the enforcement of no-fly zones is naked aggression against a member state. Similarly presence of the US, UK or Russian military forces on the ground in Afghanistan is also a violation of the concept of peacekeeping of any force authorised by the UN. Where are the blue berets? Instead there is the occupation force keeping law and order in Afghanistan.
US hegemony can also be seen in the subversion of the UN to the cause of punishing Libya, Sudan and Iran. Such incidents highlight the need for the UN to be a global forum of equals where the UN serves the interests of all its constituents and not only the interests of the most powerful. At present, the UN is constituted as fundamentally undemocratic - representing the will of the powerful. How can the majority of UN Muslim member states in particular feel comfortable with a world body which refuses to give them an effective voice and which patently acts against their interests?
How are more than one billion of the world's Muslims supposed to react to the UN when it accepts Islamic law in Saudi Arabia but disregards it in Somalia and Afghanistan, takes punitive measures against Libya in defiance of various international legal conventions and its own Charter but allows US and Israel to carry on their terrorist activities, and its leading members (notably France) encourage a dictatorial junta in Algeria to annul the results of a democratic election?
The world organisation needs to cease to be the embodiment of the mighty or the Muslim countries need to cease to be its members any more. It has to reverse the normal pattern of US-dictated solutions and put in place negotiated settlements much more even handed than what the US administration wants. If the UN fails to become more democratic and more assertive, the day is not far away when most of the member states would withdraw, leaving Washington with no chance to take advantage of using its clout, and the UN would cease to be the goose laying golden eggs for the US as and when the US needed it to lay on special occasions. At the moment all the Muslims, however, wonder about the role of the UN. Is it an oppression legitimizing agency? Does it know how to end a conflict that it approves to begin? Does it exist after all, and if it does, where is it while two nuclear powers are on the brink to a nuclear war?

[Netcurtains]

Personnally I think bodies such as FIFA, Olympic committee and the UN are corrupt and undemocratic. They should all be scrapped and only democratically elected countries that sign up for such things as the "European court of justice" should be recognised as legal states. All other states (on the whole) are the enemy of humanity.
IMHO.

[vancouver]

Hi netcurtains

The UN is called 'the disgusting thing' in the bible because it stands in the place of God's Kingdom. It has been called the 'expression of God's Kingdom on earth'. People seem to be putting their faith in the UN for peace and security instead of where it rightly belongs that is God's Kingdom.

'Disgusting Things Leading to Desolation.'

Daniel's prophecy foretold "disgusting things" associated with desolation. (Da 9:27) The popular view has generally followed early Jewish tradition in applying this expression to the profanation of Jehovah's temple at Jerusalem in the year 168 B.C.E. by Syrian King Antiochus IV (Epiphanes). Attempting to stamp out the worship of Jehovah, Antiochus built an altar over the great altar of Jehovah and sacrificed upon this a pig to the Olympian Zeus (Jupiter). An expression like that of Daniel (associating disgusting things with desolation) appears in the Apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees (1:54) as applying to this event.

But this was only the Jewish interpretation of matters, not an inspired revelation. Christ Jesus showed this view to be in error when he gave the warning to his disciples: "Therefore, when you catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in a holy place, (let the reader use discernment,) then let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains." (Mt 24:15, 16) These words show that "the disgusting thing that causes desolation" was not then past but future.

The pagan desecration of the temple altar by Antiochus, however disgusting in God's sight, did not result in desolation-for Jerusalem, for the temple, or for the Jewish nation. But 33 years after Jesus' death, Christians did "catch sight of the disgusting thing that causes desolation . . . standing in a holy place." (Mt 24:15) In 66 C.E. pagan Roman armies surrounded "the holy city" Jerusalem, now the center of Jewish revolt against Rome. Thus, the 'causing of desolation' by the disgusting thing was imminent, and so this was the final signal for discerning Christians to 'flee to the mountains.' (Mt 4:5; 27:53; 24:15, 16; Lu 19:43, 44; 21:20-22) Following their flight, the desolation of the city and nation occurred, Jerusalem being destroyed in the year 70 C.E., and the last Jewish stronghold, Masada, falling to the Romans in 73 C.E.-Compare Da 9:25-27.

Additional prophecies of a disgusting thing. It should be noted, however, that Daniel 11:31-35 and 12:9, 11 connect a 'disgusting thing causing desolation' with "the time of the end." It is reasonable that the development of this latter expression of 'the disgusting thing causing desolation' in the time of the end should follow the general pattern of that in the first century C.E., though not being restricted to the land of Israel.

Jerusalem's desolation in 70 C.E. brought the end of the "holy place," Jerusalem, "the holy city." (Mt 27:53) However, the Scriptures direct our attention to a "heavenly Jerusalem," the Messianic Kingdom, which is represented on earth by anointed Christians. (Heb 12:22) There are also others that falsely claim to represent that Kingdom, and Revelation chapter 17 shows that their religious field of operations will be desolated by the "ten horns" (kings) of a symbolic "wild beast."

"Let the Reader Use Discernment" ***

Demonstrating the confidence of Jehovah's servants that this prophecy would be fulfilled, The Watchtower of January 1, 1921, focused on it in connection with developments in the Middle East. Subsequently, in its December 15, 1929, issue, on page 374, The Watchtower definitively said: "The whole tendency of the League of Nations is to turn the people away from God and from Christ, and it is therefore a desolating thing, the product of Satan, and an abomination in the sight of God." So in 1919 "the disgusting thing" appeared. In time, the League gave way to the United Nations. Jehovah's Witnesses have long exposed these human peace organizations as disgusting in God's sight.

The preceding article summarized a clarified view of much of Matthew chapters 24 and 25. Is some clarification in order regarding 'the disgusting thing standing in a holy place'? Apparently so. Jesus' prophecy closely links the "standing in a holy place" with the outbreak of the foretold "tribulation." Hence, even though "the disgusting thing" has long existed, the link between its "standing in a holy place" and the great tribulation should affect our thinking. How so?

God's people once understood that the first phase of the great tribulation began in 1914 and that the final part would come at the battle of Armageddon. (Revelation 16:14, 16; compare The Watchtower, April 1, 1939, page 110.) So we can understand why it was once thought that the latter-day "disgusting thing" must have stood in a holy place soon after World War I.

However, in later years we have come to see things differently. On Thursday, July 10, 1969, at the "Peace on Earth" International Assembly in New York City, F. W. Franz, then vice president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, gave an electrifying talk. In reviewing the previous understanding of Jesus' prophecy, Brother Franz said: "The explanation was given that the 'great tribulation' had begun in 1914 C.E. and that it was not allowed to run its full course then but God stopped World War I in November of 1918. From then on God was allowing an interval for the activity of his anointed remnant of elect Christians before he let the final part of the 'great tribulation' resume at the battle of Armageddon."

Then a significantly adjusted explanation was offered: "To correspond with the events of the first century, . . . the antitypical 'great tribulation' did not begin in 1914 C.E. Rather, what took place upon Jerusalem's modern antitype in 1914-1918 was merely 'a beginning of pangs of distress' . . . The 'great tribulation' such as will not occur again is yet ahead, for it means the destruction of the world empire of false religion (including Christendom) followed by the 'war of the great day of God the Almighty' at Armageddon." This meant that the entire great tribulation was yet ahead.

This has a direct bearing on discerning when "the disgusting thing" stands in a holy place. Recall what happened in the first century. The Romans attacked Jerusalem in 66 C.E., but they abruptly withdrew, which allowed Christian "flesh" to be saved. (Matthew 24:22) Accordingly, we expect the great tribulation to begin soon, but it will be cut short for the sake of God's chosen ones. Note this key point: In the ancient pattern, 'the disgusting thing standing in a holy place' was linked to the Roman attack under General Gallus in 66 C.E. The modern-day parallel to that attack-the outbreak of the great tribulation-is still ahead. So "the disgusting thing that causes desolation," which has existed since 1919, apparently is yet to stand in a holy place. How will this happen? And how can we be affected?

A Future Attack

The book of Revelation describes a future destructive attack on false religion. Chapter 17 outlines God's judgment against "Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots"-the world empire of false religion. Christendom plays a central part and claims to have a covenant relationship with God. (Compare Jeremiah 7:4.) The false religions, including Christendom, have long had illicit dealings with "the kings of the earth," but this will end in the desolation of those religions. (Revelation 17:2, 5) At whose hands?

Revelation depicts "a scarlet-colored wild beast" that exists for a time, disappears, and then returns. (Revelation 17:3, 8) This beast is supported by world rulers. Details supplied in the prophecy help us to identify this symbolic beast as a peace organization that came into existence in 1919 as the League of Nations (a "disgusting thing") and that is now the United Nations. Revelation 17:16, 17 shows that God will yet put it into the hearts of certain human rulers who are prominent in this "beast" to desolate the world empire of false religion. That attack marks the outbreak of the great tribulation.

Since the start of the great tribulation is yet future, is the "standing in a holy place" still ahead of us? Evidently so. While "the disgusting thing" made its appearance early in this century and has, thus, existed for decades, it will take a position in a unique way "in a holy place" in the near future. As first-century followers of Christ must have keenly watched to see how the "standing in a holy place" would develop, so do present-day Christians. Admittedly, we will have to wait for the actual fulfillment to know all the details. Yet, it is noteworthy that in some lands there is already a detectable and growing antipathy toward religion. Some political elements, in league with former Christians who have deviated from the true faith, are promoting hostility against religion in general and true Christians in particular. (Psalm 94:20, 21; 1 Timothy 6:20, 21) Consequently, political powers even now "battle with the Lamb," and as Revelation 17:14 indicates, this fight will intensify. While they cannot literally get their hands on the Lamb of God-Jesus Christ in his exalted, glorified state-they will further vent their opposition against God's true worshipers, his "holy ones" in particular. (Daniel 7:25; compare Romans 8:27; Colossians 1:2; Revelation 12:17.) We have divine assurance that the Lamb and those with him will be victorious.-Revelation 19:11-21.

We know that desolation awaits false religion. Babylon the Great is "drunk with the blood of the holy ones" and has acted as a queen, but her destruction is certain. The unclean influence she has wielded over the kings of the earth will dramatically change as that relationship turns into one of violent hatred on the part of the 'ten horns and the wild beast.' (Revelation 17:6, 16; 18:7, 8) When the "scarlet-colored wild beast" attacks the religious harlot, "the disgusting thing" will be standing in a menacing way in Christendom's so-called holy place. So desolation will begin on faithless Christendom, which portrays itself as holy.

"Fleeing"-How?

After foretelling 'the standing of the disgusting thing in a holy place,' Jesus warned discerning ones to act. Did he mean that at that late point-when "the disgusting thing" is "standing in a holy place"-many people will flee from false religion and take up true worship? Hardly. Consider the first fulfillment. Jesus said: "Let those in Judea begin fleeing to the mountains. Let the man on the housetop not come down, nor go inside to take anything out of his house; and let the man in the field not return to the things behind to pick up his outer garment. Woe to the pregnant women and those suckling a baby in those days! Keep praying that it may not occur in wintertime."-Mark 13:14-18.

Jesus did not say that only those in Jerusalem needed to withdraw, as if his point was that they needed to get out of the center of Jewish worship; nor did his warning mention changing religion-fleeing from the false and taking up the true. Jesus' disciples certainly needed no warning about fleeing from one religion to another; they had already become true Christians. And the attack in 66 C.E. did not motivate practicers of Judaism in Jerusalem and throughout Judea to abandon that religion and accept Christianity. Professor Heinrich Graetz says that those who chased the fleeing Romans came back to the city: "The Zealots, shouting exultant war songs, returned to Jerusalem (8th October), their hearts beating with the joyful hope of liberty and independence. . . . Had not God helped them as mercifully as He had helped their forefathers? The hearts of the Zealots knew no fears for the future."

How, then, did the comparatively small number of chosen ones back then act on Jesus' advice? By leaving Judea and fleeing to the mountains across the Jordan, they showed that they were no part of the Jewish system, politically or religiously. They left fields and homes, not even gathering their possessions from their houses. Confident of the protection and support of Jehovah, they put his worship ahead of everything else that might seem important.-Mark 10:29, 30; Luke 9:57-62.

Consider, now, the larger fulfillment. We have for many decades been urging people to get out of false religion and to take up true worship. (Revelation 18:4, 5) Millions have done so. Jesus' prophecy does not indicate that once the great tribulation breaks out, masses will turn to pure worship; certainly, there was no mass conversion of Jews in 66 C.E. Yet, true Christians will have great incentive to apply Jesus' warning and flee.

We cannot presently have full details about the great tribulation, but we can logically conclude that for us the flight Jesus spoke of will not be in a geographic sense. God's people are already around the globe, virtually in every corner. We can be sure, though, that when flight is necessary, Christians will have to continue to maintain a clear distinction between themselves and false religious organizations. It is also significant that Jesus warned about not going back to one's house to retrieve garments or other goods. (Matthew 24:17, 18) So there may be tests ahead as to how we view material things; are they the most important thing, or is the salvation that will come for all on God's side more important? Yes, our fleeing may involve some hardships and deprivations. We will have to be ready to do whatever it takes, as did our first-century counterparts who fled from Judea to Perea, across the Jordan.

We must be certain that our refuge continues to be Jehovah and his mountainlike organization. (2 Samuel 22:2, 3; Psalm 18:2; Daniel 2:35, 44) That is where we will find protection! We will not imitate the masses of mankind who will flee to "the caves" and hide "in the rock-masses of the mountains"-human organizations and institutions that may remain for a very short while after Babylon the Great is desolated. (Revelation 6:15; 18:9-11) True, times may get more difficult-as they would have been in 66 C.E. for pregnant women who fled Judea or for anyone who had to travel in cold, rainy weather. But we can be sure that God will make survival possible. Let us even now reinforce our reliance on Jehovah and his Son, now reigning as King of the Kingdom.

There is no reason for us to live in fear of what is going to happen. Jesus did not want his disciples back then to be afraid, and he does not want us to be in fear, either now or in the days to come. He alerted us so that we can be preparing our hearts and minds. After all, obedient Christians will not be punished when destruction comes on false religion and the rest of this wicked system. They will be discerning and heed the warning about 'the disgusting thing standing in a holy place.' And they will act decisively on their unshakable faith. May we never forget what Jesus promised: "He that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved."-Mark 13:13.

Regards

vancouver