WBHS_School_Magazine_1966 LR 01

HAS THE UNITED NATIONS SERVED ITS PURPOSE?
What is the purpose of this vast piece of diplomatic
machinery which we call the United Nations
Organisation? When laid down io the charter its
idealistic purpose was to promote world peace
and achieve unity among the different nations,
colour-groups, castes, social classes - in fact all
people on the earth io this mad world of today.
That was the idealistic purpose. But what of its
accomplishments? Working out new designs for
wbeels and axles of ox-carts, studying tbe problems
of motor-vehicle licensing io advanced countries,
organising an "international association of
international associations". Tbese are some of
tbe accomplishments! This is the type of tbing
that gets done with millions of dollars every year,
and we sit back and watch the rot eat deeper and
deeper.
Let us consider some of the other international
organisations wbich have tagged on to U.N.O.
What have they been doing these past twenty
years or so
The Food and Agriculture Organisation sounds
important, but what is it tbere for? Ideally this
body should meet the needs of tbe underdeveloped
countries with produce from the advanced countries.
It should solve the problem of tons of food
going into the sea in the U.S.A. to keep the
prices up, while the emaciated millions of India
die in the gutters. But does it? No, it does not;
but that is because it cannot. There is no quickand-easy
solution to a problem like this. The
farmers in tbe east would be tbe first to suffer as
tbe swirLing flood of stocks from the West poured
in. Another thing: would tbe rice-accustomed
palate take to wheat and maize?
The utter futility of UNESCO can be demonstrated
by citing just one example. A cocktail
party was held in Rome in February, ]963. Two
tbousand attended. Three million pounds were
spent on building a suitable banqueting ball.
The party's purpose? To inaugurate a conference
on world hunger! Henry Moore had this to say
about UNESCO: "It bas iron fins that flap about.
It balances in mid-air. It is sensitive to every
passing breeze. It is quite meaningless, utterly
useless, and it costs a lot of money".
But what of the great political forum provided
by the General Assembly and Security Council?
Tbese two bodies make an awful lot of recommendations
to all and sundry, after an awful Jot
more talk by aU and sundry (few of wbom are
diplomats in tbe true sense). A pattern emerges
from these recommendations. Firstly, the Communist
bloc: In 1946 a British destroyer was sunk
with the loss of 49 lives at the mouth of tbe
Adriatic. Albania, who had laid tbe minefield.
completely ignored the recommendation from
U.N.O. to compensate Britain. In October, 1948.
the Security Council called on Russia to lift the
Berlin Blockade. This was vetoed and then ignored.
"Coriolanu ," a well-known political commentator,
has tbis to say: "On the hundred or so
occasions on which Russia has been decisively
outvoted in the Security Council, she has applied
the veto. No outside agency has been allowed to
interfere witb tbe Soviet Empire".
However, with few exceptions, the colonial
powers - Britain, France, the Netherlands and
Belgium - have been very good and have listened
to and heeded the words of U.N.O.! 1962 saw
the Dutch hand New Guinea over to Indonesia.
Two years earlier the Belgians "expedited" the
independence of tbe Congo, and still earlier .the
Anglo-French forces evacuated the Suez Canal
Zone when asked nicely to do so. Arab and
Asian states, on the other hand, just bluntly say
"no". Tbe Security Council instructed Egypt to
allow free passage to Israeli ships through Suez in
1951. But the "Israelites" had still to "wander"
via the Cape. India rejected appeals to hold a
referendum in Kashmir, despite the appeals of
U.N.o.
In short: the noble concept conceived and
brought into being at tbe close of tbe Second
World War has degenerated into a mere forum
for petty politicians to strut on to the world stage
as apparent equals of the world's most learned
and experienced statesmen. The mighty auditorium
of U.N. has become a wonderful ecbo-chamber
for upstart Afro-Asian states and the only law
that prevails is: "He who shouts loudest gets tbe
clearest and most effective ecbo in his own country".
To look objectively at tbis international teaparty
one can come to only one conclusion: tbat
under the United Nations Organisation a double
standard of behaviour amongst the nations bas
been sanctioned and this has ski.lfully been twisted
to the advantage of the East and tbe detriment
of the Western World.
W. BARNES, lOa.
12