Every time there is an armed conflict or imperialist intervention in some part of the world (in the last few months there have been four such interventions - in Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Yugoslavia), many of those on the "left" invoke the name of the United Nations as a possible solution to these conflicts - instead of unmasking the maneuvers of imperialism and the real interests which are behind each of the its actions.
So is the UN really a viable solution for the conflict in the Balkans? If the bombing were being carried out under the banner of the UN would we support it? Are the missiles and bombs launched by the UN any less destructive than those of NATO?
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, not a single day has gone by without some sort of military conflict in some part of the world. The UN has been impotent to avoid this, and in some cases - Korea, Iraq - directly backed American imperialism. where was the UN when the US intervened in Vietnam, Panama, Granada, or Cambodia? What about the bombing and blockade of Iraq, which has plunged the Iraqi people into absolute misery, hunger and disease? Is that not backed of by the UN?
Throughout its existence, the UN has intervened on many occasions, sending its blue helmets to the so-called "Third World". But it has done so only in secondary conflicts - observing cease-fires, electoral processes, and things of that nature - never to resolve decisive issues or major military confrontations.
For example, in 1992 it sent troops to five countries - Somalia, Cambodia, Angola, Yugoslavia, and El Salvador. In Angola, after the collapse of Stalinism in Russia and Eastern Europe, members of UNITA (reactionary, right wing guerrillas financed by imperialism) were able to reach an agreement with the government in which they could participate in the upcoming elections. The UN sent troops to guarantee the electoral process, but Savimbi (the main leader of UNITA) did not want to accept his electoral defeat, expelled the UN and continued the destructive civil war.
In Cambodia the UN was unable to stop the Khmer Rouge (Maoist guerrillas responsible for the massacre of millions) from breaking a cease-fire or from rejecting the election results in which they were defeated.
US imperialism intervened in Somalia because in theory, humanitarian help did not arrive to the starving population due to the fact that armed clans of gangsters stole it before it arrived. But the real reason was to set a precedent for for future interventions in small countries of the Third World, using the usual excuse of "humanitarian aid". The UN's intervention in Yugoslavia in 1992 solved nothing, as the current situation in Kosovo makes obvious.
These are just a few examples of the impotence of the United Nations, and of its inability to satisfactorily resolve even minor conflicts. As long as there are different imperialist powers fighting over the redivision of the world, these conflicts will continue.
Who controls the UN?
The UN is comprised of two main bodies: the General Assembly, made up of 185 countries, and by the Security Council, made up of France, Great Britain, The United States, China, and Russia - who are permanent members and have veto power, and other countries without the veto. When imperialism want to use the UN to legitimize its interventions and maneuvers, it does not refer to the General Assembly, which is composed largely of countries exploited by imperialism, but rather to the Security Council. When the General Assembly makes resolutions that contradict the interests of imperialism, the imperialists simply ignore them - as is the case with the various resolutions against the embargo of Cuba.
In the Security Council, the five permanent members have veto power. This is why the imperialists did not resort to the UN in the war against Yugoslavia, as Russia is opposed to it and would have vetoed the action.
So what interests does the UN represent? Formally it represents the interests of all member countries, but in practice it serves the interests of imperialism. And when they cannot use the UN as a fig-leaf for their actions, they simply resort to other organizations like NATO. When it actually works, it acts in favor of imperialism, and when it doesn't, it is absolutely worthless. And never does it truly defend the interests of oppressed peoples.
The UN has always acted in favor of the powerful, of the imperialist countries. It cannot be any other way. At the moment of truth, important issues are resolved by force. The funding and military forces behind the UN are in the hands of the bourgeoisie, of imperialism. Does it make any sense to have any illusions in the possibility that the UN might work outside of, or even against those interests? Yet many on the left seem to harbor illusions of this sort. We need to fight against imperialism on all fronts, and explain to well-meaning individuals that the United Nations is not a solution!
The UN will never change its class nature without major reform. The workers and youth of all countries have the same interests, opposed to those of the capitalists and the UN, and that is why invoking the name of the UN to stop war and better the world serves only to confuse and create false hopes. The UN was created by the ruling class, and remains under its control. Only a Socialist Federation of the World can truly resolve the conflicts and horrors inherent in capitalism.
Juana Cobo and Peter Johnson
June 1, 1999
Home | Back to The Balkans