The UN​—One Man’s Vision

THE Albertina, a four-engined DC-6B aircraft, flew in low over the African bush. It had just made a pass over the Ndola airport in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Its 16 occupants included one of the most important men in the world at that time.

In the black of the night, the pilot turned to make his landing. “Moments later the propellers cut the treetops . . . The wing tip was torn off, and, in the next few seconds, more and more of the wing was ripped away. . . . Nearly eight hundred nightmare feet beyond the initial brush with the trees, the stub of the Albertina’s left wing hit the base of an anthill. The aircraft swung around, cartwheeling leftward until it came to fiery rest facing the way it had come.”

When rescuers finally reached the plane, they found in it the bodies of 14 persons who had been burned to death. The single survivor lived for five days. A few yards away from the wreckage was the broken body of the secretary-general of the United Nations​—Dag Hammarskjöld. The world’s top civil servant, Mr. UN as some called him, was dead.​—The Mysterious Death of Dag Hammarskjold, by Arthur L. Gavshon.

The UN and the Churches

Dag Hammarskjöld’s death took the world by surprise. Some wondered how the UN would function without the leadership of this aloof, intelligent man who had stamped his style on the role of the secretary-general.

Hammarskjöld has been described as a Christian mystic. His writings seem to imply that he believed he was called by God to his destiny at the United Nations. In speaking to church groups, he said that faith in God and the UN should be parallel. On one occasion he stated: “The [UN] Organization and the churches stand side by side as participants in the efforts of all men of good will, irrespective of their creed or form of worship, to establish peace on earth.” He also claimed: “In spite of all differences in character and responsibility, the churches and the United Nations have an aim in common and a field of action where they work side by side.”

Hammarskjöld also designed the Meditation Room that is in the public lobby of the UN building. It was built with funds collected by a mixed group of Muhammadans, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants. In the middle of the austere room is a polished block of iron ore illuminated by a narrow shaft of light.

How did Hammarskjöld view that iron stone? He wrote: “We may see it as an altar, empty not because there is no God, not because it is an altar to an unknown god, but because it is dedicated to the God whom man worships under many names and in many forms.”

Billions of people believe in God. Many of them have seen Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II as well as Protestant clergy lend their support and blessing to the peace organization. The Vatican even has its permanent observer to the UN. Because of this religious support, some believe that the UN might really be God’s way to bring peace and security to the earth. Even now they are looking to 1986 as the UN “International Year of Peace.”

Do you believe that the UN is really God’s way to peace on earth? Do you think that the 40 years of history of this organization gives evidence of God’s blessing on it? Has the UN really united the nations in peace?

[Picture on page 3]

Dag Hammarskjöld sought the support of the churches for the UN

[Credit Line]

UN photo

The UN​—Has It United the Nations?

“WHO will establish the enduring peace, and when?” Jehovah’s Witnesses asked those questions in the booklet called Peace​—Can It Last? published in 1942. Because of World War II the League of Nations was in a state of suspended animation, or ‘abyssed,’ as the Bible puts it. (Revelation 17:8) Thus the question was also raised, Will the League remain in the pit of inactivity?

Even at that early date, the Witnesses found the answer in the Bible. In the midst of World War II, the Peace booklet predicted: “The association of worldly nations will rise again.” Did that forecast come true?

In April 1945 a conference was held in San Francisco to adopt a charter for the United Nations. In the book The Great Design, Cornelia Meigs describes what occurred when the meeting was due to open: “There was held a great and inspiring service in the Washington Cathedral, to pray for God’s help in the new undertaking. . . . It was notable at the Conference itself how many of the principal speakers, in their opening and closing addresses, invoked the aid of God in what they were setting their hands to do.”

Some wanted the Deity to be mentioned in the Charter. Others did not. The nations were not united, so “God” was left out. That division of opinion should have been an early warning of what was to follow. Nevertheless, the 51 founder nations signed the UN Charter, and the defunct League ascended from its ashes.

How has the UN differed from the League? And has it had more success in keeping the peace? Has it really united the nations?

The Secretary-General

The groundwork for a stronger and more effective organization was laid by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, and their advisers. Those men represented the Big Three​—the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union—​in conferences held in Moscow, Tehran, Yalta, and Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.). In fact, it was President Roosevelt who finally chose the name United Nations.

The UN’s General Assembly held its first session in January 1946. By February 1 the UN had appointed its first secretary-general, the Norwegian Trygve Lie. How did he view his appointment? “I had been nothing less than catapulted into the Secretary-Generalship of this new international organization, to preserve peace and promote progress in a world beset by unrest, poverty, and great-power rivalry. It was a challenge beyond my wildest dreams; but it was a nightmare as well. . . . I asked myself again and again, Why had this awesome task fallen to a labor lawyer from Norway?”

As with the old League, originally not too much was expected from the secretary of the organization. According to writer Andrew Boyd, the founders of the UN did not perceive how far reaching the secretary-general’s powers would be. As Boyd states in his book Fifteen Men on a Powder Keg: “They [the Big Three] never even glimpsed the possibility that the new world organisation’s chief official would have to run its international forces.” He adds: “They saw him as their creature, and a timid creature at that.”

Yet article 99 of the UN Charter clearly stated: “The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.” (Italics ours.) As Trygve Lie wrote: “This Article confers upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations world political responsibilities which no individual, no representative of a single nation, ever had before.” Therefore, he was going to be a force to be reckoned with.

In fact, the influence of the secretary-general as a troubleshooter grew to the point that during the Congo crisis in 1961 Dag Hammarskjöld, who succeeded Trygve Lie, raised 20,000 troops and technicians from 18 countries to help end that conflict. In 1964 U Thant, who then held the position, was responsible for three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces.

The present secretary-general, Peruvian Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, commands UN peace forces that still operate in Cyprus and the Middle East. He also heads the Secretariat that now has a staff of about 7,400 at the UN headquarters in New York. Some 19,000 more work under the auspices of the UN in other countries. Yet, with all these human resources at its disposal, has the UN been effective in preventing wars over the last 40 years?

It Barks But Cannot Bite

The answer to that last question has to be yes and no. Twenty years after the League of Nations was founded in 1919, it went into its death throes when World War II erupted. Forty years after its founding, the UN is still on its feet. But while a third world war has not yet broken out, certainly many terrible wars have been fought and millions of people have suffered the consequences. The wars in Korea (1950-53), the Middle East (1948-49, 1967, and 1973), and Indochina/​Vietnam (1945-54 and 1959-75) immediately spring to mind. Logically the question is, Why was the UN incapable of preventing those wars?

The answer given by UN officials is that the organization is only as effective as its members allow it to be. Mr. Stefan Olszowski, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated in a letter dated May 9, 1985: “Even perfect decisions of the Organization cannot yield expected practical results unless and until they have the response and support in the political will of Member States. I trust that mankind will succeed in halting and reversing the course towards the precipice.”

Therefore, the UN can only be a persuasive force, not a police force with powers of arrest. It is really a world forum, a debating arena wherein the nations present their grievances​—if it suits them. As former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim wrote: “If they are not prepared to bring a problem to the [Security] Council, the United Nations can be of little help . . . The side-tracking or ignoring of the Security Council erodes its prestige and weakens its position . . . I regard this as potentially one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations.”

However, if nations do bring their problems to the UN, it is often to accuse and counteraccuse. The UN becomes a forum for political propaganda. That being so, you might ask, ‘How can the UN use its influence for peace?’

The answer given by UN officials is that the UN publicizes issues and tries to sway world opinion so that governments will respond. But in itself, it cannot take any armed action to prevent or impede a war. In that case, what about its own armed UN forces?

A UN publication answers: “These forces [if empowered by the Security Council or the General Assembly] typically assist in preventing the recurrence of fighting, restoring and maintaining order and promoting a return to normal conditions. To this end, peace-keeping forces are authorized as necessary to use negotiation, persuasion, observation and fact-finding. . . . While they are armed, they are permitted to use their weapons only in self-defence.” (Italics ours.) Thus their purpose is to dissuade others from conflict and avoid it themselves.

So, in reality, what does that make the UN? It turns it into a watchdog that is allowed to bark but not to bite. But at least a barking dog gives warning of trouble. Then why does the UN appear to be ineffective?

Where the Real Power Lies

According to Andrew Boyd, the problems of the UN were built into the Charter by the Big Three. He explains: “They bluntly told the smaller fry that they had already decided on a UN security structure which would be entirely controlled by the great powers. . . . There had been full agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin that the proposed United Nations organisation was to be an instrument for the execution of decisions jointly made by the Big Three (with China and France as their privileged associates).”

Boyd continues: “Obviously, a system shaped by the Three themselves was not going to be one that involved them in surrendering any part of their vast military might to the control of the whole body of smaller states; or to that of the UN Secretary-General . . . or to the International Court or anybody else.” So how did they protect their monopoly of power and control?

Boyd explains: “The Three did not trust each other. The veto was to be their shield against each other as well as against the nose-count power of the lesser states.” What is the veto? It is the right to block a decision by a negative vote. It is reserved to the 5 permanent members (China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) of the 15-member Security Council. Thus, for a major Council decision to get through, it must have at least nine favorable votes including the concurring votes of the five. However, an abstention is not counted as a veto.

Thus, with the veto included, the UN Charter “reflected an expectation that the great powers were likely to quarrel.” With this kind of beginning, the “united” nations did not get off to a good start.

Nevertheless, here we are in 1985, and so far World War III has been avoided. The UN is still playing an active role in world affairs. Therefore, is it reasonable to believe that the UN could still be God’s way to peace?

[Box on page 6]

The UN Secretary-General and Some of His Problems

[Picture on page 4]

Trygve Lie asked, ‘Why has this awesome task fallen to me?’

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 5]

U Thant commanded three simultaneous UN peace-keeping forces

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 7]

Kurt Waldheim wrote about “one of the most dangerous trends in the history of the United Nations”

[Credit Line]

UN photo

[Picture on page 7]

Javier Pérez de Cuéllar heads a staff of some 26,000

[Credit Line]

UN photo

The UN​—God’s Way to Peace?

“I am convinced that the United Nations provides the best road to the future for those who have confidence in our capacity to shape our own fate on this planet.”

THAT conviction was expressed by former Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim in his book The Challenge of Peace. While admitting the UN’s shortcomings, he also explained: “One should realize that the United Nations is, after all, the world in microcosm. Its weaknesses must consequently be ascribed primarily to the contradictions that characterize the world community itself.” He adds: “I should point out that it [the UN] is no more than a mirror of the world it serves. That world is a conglomerate of extremely varied, often intractable, passionate, and antagonistic nations.” But not all commentators see the UN in such a favorable light.

In their book A Dangerous Place​—The United Nations as a Weapon in World Politics, Professors Yeselson and Gaglione argue that from its earliest days the UN has been a forum for expressing belligerence, and that it is a tinderbox of antagonisms and political manipulations that can only fan the flames of international conflict. And what about the world in which it operates? “A perverse yet simple truth is that world politics is very much like a jungle. National behavior is fundamentally grounded in self-interest and survival. Obsession with the latter imparts to the nation-state system not only the law of the jungle but its morality as well.” As a consequence, “war has become a permanent feature of international relations.”

What a contrast with the high hopes they had when the Charter of the United Nations was signed in 1945! Its preamble stated: “WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind . . . HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.”

Forty years later it sounds a little hollow. Instead of combining, the nations divide. Even now war is the daily fare of millions in one part of the earth or another! Every day people suffer and die as war victims​—despite the existence of the UN.

Who Is Really Behind the UN?

Although having differing viewpoints, the two books previously quoted converge in an unusual detail. Waldheim says that the UN ‘is a mirror of the world it serves,’ and Yeselson and Gaglione compare that political world to a jungle. Thus the UN must inexorably reflect the same law of the political jungle that its members inhabit.

With this in mind, it is of great interest to note symbolisms used in the Bible. The Bible speaks of a “wild beast” and also its “image,” described as “a scarlet-colored wild beast.” (Revelation 13:1, 2, 14; 17:3, 8, 11) The first wild beast represents the entire worldwide political organization that has evolved over the past 4,000 years and that has culminated in the political diversity seen in the world today.a Then what must the “image” of that beast represent?

According to the sources quoted above, which organization mirrors the present political system? Obviously, the UN with its 159 member nations, these constituting almost universal representation. (See page 11.) And the Bible symbols of wild beasts harmonize well with the ‘political jungle’ image. It is sad but true that many politicians have implemented and are still implementing their political philosophies like wild beasts​—savagely killing off millions of people, combatants and civilians, in their wars and political purges. Torture and death squads have been and still are tools of political coercion. And most of these same governments and philosophies have their respectable representation at the UN.

In view of the foregoing, is it reasonable to believe that the UN could be God’s way to peace, especially when, by the simplest definition, “God is love”? (1 John 4:8) But if the UN is not God’s answer to the problem, who is really behind the UN?

The Bible leaves no doubt as to the origin of the “wild beast” political system and its UN “image.” In Revelation 13:2 we read: “And the dragon gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” Who does “the dragon” represent? The same Bible writer clarifies that “the dragon” is “the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” But in what way is Satan misleading the world?​—Revelation 12:9.

By every possible political scheme and philosophy, including the UN, Satan, the original liar, is diverting mankind’s attention away from the only true pathway to peace and security​—the rule of God’s Kingdom over this earth. (John 8:44) For nearly two thousand years, professed Christians have prayed, “Let your kingdom come.” Yet most have had no clear concept of what is meant by God’s Kingdom. What does it mean to you? Now when that Kingdom is so near it is vital to get a proper understanding of it.​—Matthew 6:9, 10.

Awake! correspondents know from personal contact that many sincere and dedicated people are working to further the aims of the UN. These sincere people also see the organization’s weaknesses, but like Kurt Waldheim and others, they believe that it is man’s only hope for lasting peace and security. They are not aware of any better solution. Yet there is an alternative that they have perhaps overlooked​—God’s Kingdom rule.​—Revelation 11:15.

The Only True Way to Peace

The Bible shows that the Kingdom of God refers to heavenly rulership, or government of the earth from the spirit realm. (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 21:1-4) This Kingdom government by Christ is already functioning worldwide and is preparing a supranational people for everlasting life under its rulership. This completely united body of people from all nations and of all languages is known as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are the truly “united nations” who have already ‘beaten their swords into plowshares.’ They have also broken the shackles of racism and of parochial nationalism, which has been called “the most powerful and destructive force in international politics.” Those very shackles still bind and impede the UN.​—Isaiah 2:2-4.

Through personal study of the Bible, Jehovah’s Witnesses know that only God’s Kingdom can bring true and lasting peace to this earth and that the time is very near for God’s Kingdom to take action. (Luke 21:31-33; Revelation 16:14, 16) ‘What action?’ you may ask. The destruction of those who are willfully ruining the earth. (Revelation 11:18) This includes the crushing of all divisive political elements. (Daniel 2:44) Thus Jehovah’s Witnesses reject as inadequate Satan’s counterfeit solution​—the UN. But why is it inadequate?

The 17th-century Dutch philosopher Spinoza defined peace as “not an absence of war” but something much more all-embracing. He said: “It is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.” That can only be achieved by educating people in love and harmony rather than in hatred and division. As the Bible writer James recorded: “The fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.” (James 3:18) By their worldwide educational work Jehovah’s Witnesses are teaching God’s ways of peace, for his Word states: “All your sons will be persons taught by Jehovah, and the peace of your sons will be abundant.”​—Isaiah 54:13.

If you would like to know more about God’s Kingdom government, feel free to contact Jehovah’s Witnesses in your area. They will be glad to help you get to know God’s way to peace.

[Footnotes]

[Box on page 11]

Major Problems Affecting the UN

1. Nuclear arms race and the U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. confrontation

4. Drugs, international traffic

5. International terrorism

7. Namibia’s independence from South Africa

8. Israel and the Palestinian question

9. Turmoil in Lebanon

10. Iran-Iraq conflict

11. Southeast Asia, Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea

13. Afghanistan, intervention by Soviet Union

15. Human-rights abuses

This listing is based on the speeches presented at the 39th session of the UN General Assembly in 1984 by 150 representatives, including 16 heads of state or government. (See UN Chronicle, Volume XXI, Number 8/1984.)

[Box on page 11]

How UN Membership Has Grown

[Picture on page 9]

The flags of 159 member nations are on display in front of the UN

[Picture on page 10]

Who have already ‘beaten their swords into plowshares’?