Opinion: United Vileness
Written by : Samir Atallah
I liked the idea and function of the United Nations because it is an arena for dialogue and dispute resolution. Even after discovering its limitations, I was still convinced that it was the best invention by politicians after the two world wars. On its podium, Castro and the US president both spoke of their policies and position towards the other. On this same platform, an African minister spoke on behalf of his country, and was followed by his opponent who claimed he was the sole and legitimate spokesman. Then they returned to their country and established companies for distributing death.
But here, on this platform, it is only fitting to discuss peace. When necessary, the Security Council may resort to something from Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani, which complicates the work of interpreters who have long heard Nizar say that poetry cannot be translated. Sort it out yourselves. The United Nations has not resolved many issues—especially not the important ones—and it was unable to protect the 800,000 Rwandans that were killed by machetes. In spite of this, it remained the best of the achievements of international politics.
The Security Council has always covered conflicts and wars and stood incapacitated, divided or as an accomplice. Its members, bother permanent and temporary, have always escaped moral responsibility. It has always witnessed travestis, such as Madeleine Albright standing alone in the face of 14 states to isolate Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
read more: http://www.aawsat.net/2013/07/article55310469
YALLA SOURIYA 