[[link removed]]
LET’S THINK ABOUT HOW TO BUILD A MORE PEACEFUL WORLD
[[link removed]]
Lawrence S. Wittner
August 6, 2024
Z
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
_ The time has arrived to consider bolstering international
institutions that can build a more peaceful world. The current
presidential campaign provides an appropriate place for raising this
issue. We have a personal stake in ensuring human survival. _
Sanno Shrine, located in Nagasaki, Japan,
Although the current U.S. presidential campaign has focused almost
entirely on domestic issues, Americans live on a planet engulfed in
horrific wars, an escalating arms race, and repeated threats of
nuclear annihilation. Amid this dangerous reality, shouldn’t we give
some thought to how to build a more peaceful future?
Back in 1945, toward the end of the most devastating war in history,
the world’s badly battered nations, many of them in smoldering
ruins, agreed to create the United Nations
[[link removed]], with a mandate
to “maintain international peace and security.”
It was not only a relevant idea, but one that seemed to have a lot of
potential. The new UN General Assembly would provide membership and a
voice for the world’s far-flung nations, while the new UN Security
Council would assume the responsibility for enforcing peace.
Furthermore, the venerable International Court of Justice
[[link removed]] (better known as the World Court)
would issue judgments on disputes among nations. And
the International Criminal Court [[link removed]]―created
as an afterthought nearly four decades later―would try individuals
for crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and
crimes of aggression. It almost seemed as if a chaotic, ungovernable,
and bloodthirsty pack of feuding nations had finally evolved into
the long-standing dream of “One World.”
[[link removed]]
But, as things turned out, the celebration was premature.
The good news is that, in some ways, the new arrangement for global
governance actually worked. UN action did, at times, prevent or end
wars [[link removed]], reduce
international conflict, and provide a forum for discussion and action
by the world community. Thanks to UN decolonization policies
[[link removed]], nearly all
colonized peoples emerged from imperial subjugation to form new
nations, assisted by international aid for economic and social
development. A Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[[link removed]],
adopted in 1948, set vastly-improved human rights standards for people
around the world.UN entities swung into action to address new global
challenges in connection with public health
[[link removed]], poverty
[[link removed]], and climate
change [[link removed]].
Even so, despite the benefits produced by the United Nations, this
pioneering international organization sometimes fell short of
expectations, particularly when it came to securing peace. Tragically,
much international conflict persisted, bringing with it costly arms
races, devastating wars, and massive destruction. To some degree, this
persistent conflict reflected ancient hatreds that people proved
unable to overcome and that unscrupulous demagogues worked
successfully to inflame.
But there were also structural reasons for ongoing international
conflict.In a world without effective enforcement of international
law, large, powerful nations could continue to lord it over smaller,
weaker nations. Thus, the rulers of these large, powerful nations
(plus a portion of their citizenry) were often reluctant to surrender
this privileged status.
Symptomatically, the five victorious great powers of 1945 (the United
States, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China) insisted
[[link removed]] that
their participation in the United Nations hinged upon their receiving
permanent seats in the new UN Security Council, including a veto
enabling them to block Security Council actions not to their liking
.Over the ensuing decades, they used the veto hundreds of times
[[link removed]] to
stymie UN efforts to maintain international peace and security.
Similarly, the nine nuclear nations (including these five great
powers) refused to sign the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons [[link removed]], which has
been endorsed by the overwhelming majority of the world’s nations.
Behind their resistance to creating a nuclear weapons-free world lies
a belief that there is much to lose by giving up the status and power
that nuclear weapons afford them
Of course, from the standpoint of building a peaceful world, this is a
very short-sighted position, and the reckless behavior and nuclear
arrogance of the powerful have led, at times, to massive opposition
[[link removed]] by
peace and nuclear disarmament movements, as well as by many smaller,
more peacefully-inclined nations.
Thanks to this resistance and to a widespread desire for peace,
possibilities do exist for overcoming UN paralysis on numerous matters
of international security. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult
to abolish the Security Council veto outright, given the fact that,
under the UN Charter
[[link removed]], the five
permanent members have the power to veto that action, as well. But
Article 27(3) of the Charter does provide that nations party to a
dispute before the Council must abstain from voting on that issue―a
provision that provides a means to circumvent the veto. In
addition, 124 UN nations have endorsed
[[link removed]] a
proposal to scrap the veto in connection with genocide, crimes against
humanity, and mass atrocities, while the UN General Assembly has
previously used “Uniting for Peace” resolutions
[[link removed](V)] to
act on peace and security issues when the Security Council has evaded
its responsibility to do so.
Global governance could also be improved through other measures. They
include increasing the number of nations
[[link removed].] accepting
the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
and securing wider ratification
[[link removed]] of the
founding statute of the International Criminal Court (which has yet to
be ratified by Russia, the United States, China, India, and other
self-appointed guardians of the world’s future).
It won’t be easy, of course, to replace the law of force with the
force of law. Only this May, the prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court took a bold step toward strengthening international
norms by announcing that he was seeking arrest warrants
[[link removed]] for
top Israeli officials and Hamas commanders for crimes in and around
Gaza. In response
[[link removed]], the
Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed the
“Illegitimate Court Counteraction Act,” legislation requiring the
U.S. executive to impose sanctions on individuals connected with the
ICC.
Despite the nationalist backlash, however, the time has arrived to
consider bolstering international institutions that can build a more
peaceful world. And the current U.S. presidential campaign provides an
appropriate place for raising this issue. After all, Americans, like
the people of other lands, have a personal stake in ensuring human
survival.
_[DR. LAWRENCE WITTNER [[link removed]], syndicated
by PeaceVoice [[link removed]], is Professor of History
emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb
[[link removed]] (Stanford
University Press).]_
* rule of law
[[link removed]]
* United Nations
[[link removed]]
* International Criminal Court
[[link removed]]
* war crimes
[[link removed]]
* Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[[link removed]]
* Hiroshima
[[link removed]]
* Nagasaki
[[link removed]]
* Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[[link removed]]
* international agreements
[[link removed]]
* nuclear weapons
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]
INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT
Submit via web
[[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]
Twitter [[link removed]]
Facebook [[link removed]]
[link removed]
To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]
