The UN Charter’s Preamble states: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED — to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and — to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and — to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and — to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom….” The body affirms international support for tolerance, peace and security, and resolve to promote universal economic and social advancement.
However, since its 1945 founding, it’s failed on all counts, even though some of its agencies (like UNICEF, WFP, UNHCR and UNESCO) at times provide aid in areas of health, education, food assistance, refugees, social development and more. It’s never enough though, timely, or with resolve to support troubled people adequately in times of need. Moreover, global wars raged every year post-WW II to the present. The UN’s been unable or disinterested in stopping them. One of its fatal flaws is structure, hamstrung by its dominant member, America. It can and does veto measures other member states support, notably when contrary to its imperial interests. As a result, no action was taken when Indonesia invaded East Timor in 1975. Hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in a secretly US-authorized aggression. Its TNI forces were armed, funded and supported by Washington. In 1999, it was impotent again after East Timor voted for independence, after which TNI forces attacked and slaughtered thousands more. During South Africa’s border wars and invasion of Namibia in the 1960s and 70s, it was sidelined, as well as during a 36-year Guatemala state-sponsored genocide against its indigenous Mayan majority, following the CIA’s ouster of democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. Dozens of other examples reveal a dismal record of failure and betrayal of its high-sounding principles and mandate to enforce them. It didn’t earlier or now, including by deploying Blue Helmets as peacekeepers. In fact, they’re hostile occupiers, serving imperial interests in Haiti, South Lebanon, Rwanda, Kosovo, Bosnia, DRC Congo, Sudan, Somalia, various other countries, and its initial UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) since 1948, failing to bring peace to Palestine. Yet it’s still there, performing no active role, opposing the interests of people they’re sworn to protect. During his tenure as Secretary-General, Kofi Annan (January 1, 1997 – December 31, 2006) was little more than an imperial tool, never achieving or working for peace anywhere. He never condemned or acted to end the devastating economic sanctions against Iraqis that killed up to 1.5 million defenseless men, women and children. He didn’t use his mandate to denounce Washington’s lawless 2003 war. No matter that it’s based on lies to permit slaughtering hundreds of thousands more and be able to plunder another occupied country. He was silent while war raged in Afghanistan and still does without end. He backed or failed to act against Israel’s illegal occupation, its worst crimes against Palestine, and its illegal 2006 Lebanon war. He took no action to denounce Washington’s failed attempts to oust Hugo Chavez, and showed a disturbing indifference to the pain and suffering of his own people throughout the continent of his birth. Instead, he dutifully served Washington, other dominant powers, and corporate predation of Africa’s riches and elsewhere. His entire tenure was a testimony to failure and betrayal. So is Ban Ki-moon’s since becoming Secretary-General on January 1, 2007. Ever since, he’s been a co-conspirator in war crimes and other abuses. In fact, one of his first acts was to reverse the UN’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment. It’s a barbaric practice often sentencing innocent people to death, notably in America. At the time, he dismissively said whether or not to enforce it “is for each and every member State to decide,” instead of forthrightly condemning it. Nor did his restructuring plan address the Security Council’s illegitimate veto power, giving one nation like America authority over all others. It’s abused the practice ever since.
Instead, it’s high time the body reflected majority rule, giving all nations equal say on issues affecting everyone. Ban’s overall silence, inaction, and support for wrong over right speak volumes. In fact, despite its own often deplorable record, Human Rights Watch (HRW) acknowledged Ban’s shamelessness. Its “World Report 2011: A Facade of Action” included criticism of his “quiet diplomacy facade of (in)action” for not taking forceful steps when needed. HRW’s executive director Kenneth Roth criticized his “use of dialogue and cooperation in lieu of public pressure….on abusive governments,” notably America and its imperial partners. In fact, said Roth, “(f)ar from condemning repression, Ban sometimes (goes) out of his way to portray repressive governments in a positive light.” He meant third world despots, not the world’s leading human rights abuser, waging lawless imperial wars and engaging in other scandalous actions. In response, Ban’s office disagreed, despite clear evidence of his complicity in grievous crimes of war and against humanity by indifference, silence, and support for Western aggression. Putting lipstick on that pig doesn’t wash. Nor have his spineless measures protected whistleblowers or prevented peacekeeper killings, rape, sexual exploitation, corruption and other crimes. In addition, he hasn’t defended human rights or condemned violations against them, notably by Western countries. Nor has he denounced aggressive wars and other lawless acts. How can he when he supports them, including Washington’s ouster of democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009. Or the Obama administration’s militarization of Haiti and complicity in rigging the electoral process to install stealth Duvalierist Michel (“Sweet Micky) Martelly, an anti-populist former Kompa singer supporter of powerful corrupt corporatist interests. Moreover, Ban backed regime change in Ivory Coast. He authorized a lawless French-backed military operation against Ivorian President Laurent Gbagbo, killing hundreds of civilians. He also echoed Washington’s call for Gaddafi’s ouster, saying he lost all legitimacy. At the same time, he backs cutthroat rebel paramilitaries, and supports lawless air strikes. They’ve laid waste to large parts of Libya and still do, killing and injuring tens of thousands. They also transformed Libya into a charnel house human rights disaster. Instead of condemning, stopping, or preventing wars, he authorized and cheerled them, betraying his mandate to support peace and human rights. Shamelessly serving Israel, not Palestine, he caused great harm in the process, including besieged Gaza denied flotilla aid from arriving. He even petitioned world leaders to back Israel’s demand to direct what it permits “through legitimate crossings and established channels” to prevent vital aid getting through or enough of it. By appointing his own commission to investigate Israel’s May 2010 Mavi Marmara massacre, he tried to whitewash his own Human Rights Council’s condemnation, as well as independent ones denouncing Israel’s cold-blooded murder of nine civilians and injuring dozens more in international waters. These were high crimes – piracy he should have forthrightly condemned, but he didn’t. Instead, he dutifully paid homage to Israel as he always does.
Despite representing 193 member states, Ban only serves Washington, Israel, and other dominant powers. He thumbs his nose at the rest, including majority General Assembly positions on numerous human rights and other vital issues. In other words, in derogation of his sworn mandate, he solely represents dominant interests. Notably they’re those of Washington, Israel, and their imperial partners, ravaging targeted countries to carve up their corpses for profit. As a result, he shares culpability with lawless predator states, harming billions worldwide by his contempt for human rights. In fact, the very notion’s not in his vocabulary, let alone concern for people in dire need. They’re on their own because Ban won’t observe his sworn mandate to help them. It’s a testimony to his deplorable record. It’s appalling enough to have earned him a second term last June, representing wealth and power for another five years at the expense of billions worldwide he scorns. It’s the mettle of a failed Secretary-General, a legacy history won’t let him forget or expunge. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Many points brought up but :
1) In fact, one of his first acts was to reverse the UN’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment. It’s a barbaric practice often sentencing innocent people to death, notably in America. t the time, he dismissively said whether or not to enforce it “is for each and every member State to decide,” instead of forthrightly condemning it. Again with the hegelian dialectic. UN’s long standing opposition sounds like you said it was a majority thing. In the case that your intention was that ‘UN’s longstanding opposition’ in anyway meant ‘majority’ (I get that impression this is pitching majority mob-rule makes right – apologies if wrong), Spirit of Law should NEVER be considered the same as democratic MOB-rule. If the majority said that people had to all become Muslim, would that be democratic? Democracy does not mean majority. Democracy ALSO needs to consider Spirit of Law and Spirit of Justice. If the majority think in a way that is abusive or affects self determinism, it is still not democratic and thus inapplicable.
Hence it is not about who is wrong or right, it is Self Determinism rather than deadweight Majority that is politically correct. We are not in the feudal era, people are individuals and so too are states. But in this case killing criminals is against Spirit of Justice and thus wrong. The legal system is supposed to rehabilitate criminals, AND at the criminal’s free willed voilition. To cite majority as reason to impose, deny expression is wrong. What Ban Ki Moon said as individual rights of nations to decide on capital punishment, he was wrong as it is not in true Spirit of Justice to kill criminals who need to relearn who they are, in many cases they were forced by circumstances to be who they were.
2) Shamelessly serving Israel, not Palestine, he caused great harm in the process, including besieged Gaza denied flotilla aid from arriving. He’s not supposed to serve anyone. But he has not treated the Israel-Palestinian issue properly so far.
Are you afflicted by pro-Palestian (Muslim?!?) neurotech?
3) Nor have his spineless measures protected whistleblowers or prevented peacekeeper killings, rape, sexual exploitation, corruption and other crimes.
All these are too ‘micro-issue’ to address by Ban alone, but I am sure that he is familiar enough with the Korean peninsular to take down a government or 2 there. Parochial looking South Korea, and Phillipines or Vietnam look like a terrible hotbed of corruption from an unfamiliar person’s viewpoint. As for North Korea, IMHO, Kim Jong Il should relinquish all political power, entirely democratise, and open the nation and declare himself a Constitutional Monarch to receive a modest stipend at most, with UN and NAM and BRICs overseeing the transition from Junta to Constitutional Monarchy. If Gaddafi had done this very same action, Libya could very well have averted the chaos it is suffering now. Again as suggested for Korea, any transitional government for Libya should have not just UN oversight but NAM and BRICS oversight as well. 4) In addition, he hasn’t defended human rights or condemned violations against them, notably by Western countries.
Nor has (the Eminent Ban, one step above lots of not-too Excellent Presidents . . . ) Ban denounced aggressive wars and other lawless acts. . . . As a result, he shares culpability with lawless predator states, harming billions worldwide by his contempt for human rights. In fact, the very notion’s not in his vocabulary, let alone concern for people in dire need. The stage is yours Ban. Speak to end wars and prove this accusation false. Or tell them to stick to conventional warfare at very least.