It is impossible to be anything other than
appalled by what is going on in Syria at the moment. Each night seems to bring
a fresh atrocity as violence grips that most ancient of nations. As we watch
the reports and listen to the commentary, it is easy to forget that Syria is
something more than a nasty regime: it is nation of people who, like us, want
to live their lives in peace without fear. In geopolitical reporting the plight
of individuals is easy to lose. Watching the news here in Australia I feel nothing but desperate sorrow for those who find themselves, by accident of their birthplace, caught up in the bloodshed. Like most people I feel powerless to do anything about the situation, and less than optimistic about the trajectory on which Syria finds itself. It is difficult to envisage anything other than trouble in that country’s near future.
In the face of such trouble and turmoil the
world invariably looks to the United Nations.
The United Nations was set up in 1945 (at the end of the Second World
War) with an initial membership of 51 nations, and has the aims of
·
Keeping peace
throughout the world;
·
Developing friendly
relations among nations;
·
Helping nations
work together to improve the lives of poor people, conquering hunger, disease
and illiteracy, and encouraging respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
 |
| Leader of the UN Security force in Syria (Source telegraph.co.uk) |
There can be no questioning that these are noble aims. That said, there has been plenty of ink spilled over whether the UN is effective in achieving its aims. The primary vehicle by which the UN aims to keep the peace of the world is through the Security Council. The Security Council is made up of 15 member nations, 10 of which rotate and five which are permanent. The five permanent nations are The United Kingdom, France, the United States, the Russian Federation and China. Importantly, these permanent members have right of veto over any resolution of the Security Council. In other words, any resolution can be struck down on the say-so of one of these five nations.
I don’t think we pause often enough and reflect on how decidedly
strange these arrangements are. The five permanent members have those positions
because they held a certain status at a fixed point in history (which,
arguably, they still do). Had the UN
been constituted in the 1700s, the permanent members may well have been Great
Britain, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands
and Russia. If it were
constituted in the 1930’s, it might have included the Empire of Japan and Nazi
Germany. You might argue that this is a
ridiculous assertion, but remember the millions who suffered in Mao’s China and
Stalin’s Soviet Union while those nations enjoyed a right of veto on the
Security Council.
We seem to have
an in-built faith in the power of collective action, and the hope of a
resolution from the Security Council seems to provide some sort of salve to our
consciences that “at least something is happening”. We hold the Security
Council out as the arbiters of justice and the protectors of peace, when in
reality they are a (highly) flawed human institution capable of willful
inaction in the face of insurmountable evidence. Moreover, the bickering that
goes on between the permanent members as they settle old scores ensures that
any progress will be slow, if there is progress at all.
 |
| UN Security Council |
“I urge, then, first of all, that
requests prayers intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings
and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all
godliness and holiness.”
In the case of Syria the UN’s processes, to date, have been
found wanting. We ought to pray that, for the sake of the Syrian people, God
might shape those processes to bring a lasting peace a security to that country. At the same time we should remember that God
is the true arbiter of justice and bringer of judgment, and that the United
Nations is but a human institution, as capable of evil as it is of good.
Send CASE an email
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment