Questioning UN in Resolving Worldwide Conflicts

Conflict in Gaza is escalating. It has claimed more than a hundred death tolls until this morning. The conflict has also contributed in worsening the world situation amid the growing concern toward Syria with its internal conflict. The question is: where is the position of United Nations in these nasty conditions?

It cannot be doubted that actually UN was formed in order to stabilize the world after it had faced World War II. By establishing an independent organization, it was hoped that war was no longer used as a tool to resolve a conflict. But, realities show the opposite nowadays. UN does seem that it has no firm actions towards worldwide conflict. It can be said that this organization has been shaped to be benign and then lost its teeth.

It cannot also be doubted then UN has been trapped with conflict of interests within its own body. Security Council is the primary source of this conflict since UN peace-policies mean nothing if they are vetoed by one of the member. Thus, if there is something that should have been done by UN in order to establish peace, it can be easily cancelled just because one member rejects it. Thus, what does make Security Council become so vulnerable and get trapped by the conflict?

The answer for the question is absolutely easy. It can be clearly seen by the members itself: United States as the representation of the West and Russia as the East’s representative. Both of these nations have been long engaging in a cold war situation. Even though USSR with its communist ideology had been dissolved and US could acclaim its victory against the “Left”, it is too early to notice such victory. Russia still holds its “Left” ideology.

The victorious of the West is also premature since China joined the Security Council and then strengthens the position of Russia with “Left” ideology. Although the rest of the member can be considered in favor of West, the power of these two “Left” nations cannot be underestimated. It can be clearly seen when both of them vetoed the policy of Security Council to take firm actions in regard of Syria conflict.

The presence of China and Russia may be regarded as a positive thing in a sense that it will balance the ideology held by Security Council and UN itself. Both “West” and “East” are represented. But, it will also pose a new problem when it should decide in regard of sensitive issues especially when the both sides have interests in a country where the conflict is happening.

Thus, it may be true when China and Russia are considered as a threat in Security Council when it tried to establish peace in Syria. These two countries may be regarded as the source of destabilization in the country. But, the same question and objection can also be raised towards US and its allies in Gaza conflict nowadays. Would they take a firm step toward Israel in order to establish peace in Gaza?

This is not a question about who sparks the conflict at first. I do believe that if both of the conflicting parties really want to restrain themselves and to not get provoked, peace is not a utopian dream.

But, the problem in Gaza is really complex: from the problem of refuge when Palestine people should leave their own home in the era of first Zionist movement, problem of Jerusalem, the presence of Hamas faction and other terrorist groups in that area, weapon smuggling unto Gaza, and the nowadays condition when this area is blockaded and make the living in Gaza is worsening. Based upon the interview I heard from BBC, it is about 80% of Gaza people rely their lives upon aid given to them. It is really an unlivable condition. Would then US pose a firm action toward Israel in order to establish peace and help Gaza people get out from their own problem? Would not US veto any policies made in order to resolve the conflict if the policies are considered bring disadvantages for Israeli people?

Security Council has been then overwhelmed by the conflict of interests and ideologies. In such conflict, people will no longer know what humanity really is. In that circumstance what is regarded as important is only if one side can successfully disseminate its influence and at the same time it can also protect its own interests.

Humanity actually cannot be acquainted with interest. Its position is above interests engulfing countries in this whole world. UN actually has its own body named United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Why cannot this body do something in order to establish peace? Why this body is not placed above the Security Council which has been overwhelmed by conflicts of interests? UN’s MDG plan is then only a shame if it still let people die just because Security Council is trapped with conflict of interests. UN has a big responsibility to avoid people dying caused by war of ideology.

I thought that UN should have another supreme body which is truly independent to establish peace regardless of the presence of Security Council, if it is reluctant to reorganize and reexamine the role of Security Council. This body should have the ability to organize peace keeper forces and to force nations to respect human rights. It should also have a duty to avoid itself from conflict of interests. Once it has approved a policy, Security Council should be pushed to organize peace-keeping forces.

The presence of such body is indeed very important. Security Council has been acting as if it is God who has everything in its hand and thus neglecting humanity as the core goal of the establishment of United Nations. By doing this, it is hoped that the pace of UN as an organization to establish peace can be made firmer. It is for humanity; to all humans as our brothers and sisters who have right to live peacefully and cannot be rejected even neglected.