The UN Is a Threat to Peace -- Get Rid of the UN for the Sake of Peace & Humanity

I guess we'll go right on having peace conferences
till the next war
Earl Wilson, American humorist & syndicated columnist
[E Wilson, Pike's Peek or Bust (New York: Doubleday 1946), p 75;
note publication date 1946, right after WW2]

The UN plays a bigger role in our lives than many of us realize. Although some believe that the UN is ineffective, it is rather all too effective. Not at making peace, of course. But at making war or creating the conditions for war. The sinister role played by UN secretary-general Kofi Annan in stopping Israel's war against the Hizbullah, an instrument of Nazi-like Iran and Syria, is a case in point. The UN Security Council, prodded by Annan, voted for a cease fire, which is what the Hizbullah and Iran and Syria wanted in order to stop Israel from wrecking the Hizbullah's military and terrorist capabilities. Annan is a black-face version of the peacemongering, white-faced pro-Nazi secretaries who preceded him. Except for Trygve Lie in the UN's early years, the secretaries-general have been anti-Israel. Kurt Waldheim, secretary-general in the late 1970s-early 1980s was in fact a Nazi war criminal who took part in massacres in the Balkans, including former Yugoslavia [his Nazi role is partly, if coyly, affirmed in Liberation 5 October 1999; p10].

However, the UN's role as warmonger in the guise of peacemonger was understood years ago. Abraham Yeselson & Anthony Gaglione, two American political scientists, explained the UN's reality 32 years ago in their book, A Dangerous Place: The United Nations as a Weapon in World Politics (New York: Grossman 1974):

We say: "The United Nations is a dangerous place." We do not mean that it is a good institution in need of a few reforms, or that it is usually ineffective, or that it changes nothing. It is a weapon in international relations and should be recognized as such. As part of the armory of nations in conflict, the United Nations contributes about as much to peace as a battleship or an atomic bomb. Disputes are brought into the United Nations in order to weaken an opponent, strengthen one's own side, prepare for war, and support a war effort. [p. x]

. . . the underlying purpose of initiating states [that bring issues to the UN] is always to buttress war or the preparations for war. . . States. . . do not refrain from war because they could fight with words [instead of firearms] at the United Nations. They do both simultaneously. [p 121]

Yeselson & Gaglione explain that the UN is not a peacemaking body. Rather it is another weapon of war. This ought to be kept in mind when considering what the diplomats do there and what comes out of the UN's main bodies, the General Assembly and Security Council, and the lesser bodies like the anti-humanitarian "Human Rights Council" [formerly the Human Rights Commission]. Kofi Annan's peacemongering [= warmongering] should be seen in the same light.

Anne Bayefsky, an expert on the UN from the Hudson Institute who runs the Eye on the UN website, describes and explains the nefarious role of the UN in general and Kofi Annan in particular in helping the Hizbullah come out of the recent war relatively unscathed. She also reports on statements by Annan and his henchmen that clearly misrepresent international law.
See an article by her in the Jerusalem Post and on her own site.

Before leaving for greener pastures, fertilized perhaps with false hopes spread by the peacemongers, consider that an early winner of the Nobel Peace Prize [1907], one Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, founder of the Lombard Union for Peace, "changed his mind. . . declaring himself in favor of intervening [by Italy] in the First World War" [La Stampa, October 3, 2001].

- - - - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, "peace" as war, etc.

Linked to Robinik.net.