How to avoid World War III E-Book

Hang Nguyen

• Herausgeber: Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 303

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021

Beschreibung

Authors Hang Nguyen and Jamal Qaiser state their plea for world peace in this comprehensive and thought-provoking book. Following World War I, with its devastating death toll of 20 million, the international community established the League of Nations with a single goal: to prevent another war. Unfortunately, they failed miserably. Only 20 years later, preparations began for World War II, which claimed over 60 million lives. In 1945 the United Nations Organization (UNO) was formed in order to prevent a third world war. The authors Hang Nguyen and Jamal Qaiser have successfully created an intriguing and historically well-founded book, in which they examine the question of how the UN can succeed in preventing a third world war. They shed light on all current sources of danger and outline viable solutions in great detail. By deep diving into the causes and correlations, they explore the dangers of war and reveal the opportunities for a peaceful world. A vast array of subjects is scrutinised under their lens, with no stone left unturned. The global power centres and nuclear arsenals, the Security Council and the UN Blue Helmets, the power and impotence of international institutions, cyber war, biological weapons, war propaganda, asocial media, terrorism, killer robots and the space race are all discussed, as are developments in Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, and the escalating global conflict between the USA and China. A separate chapter is dedicated to the question of where Europe stands in this global conflict. Throughout the book, the authors not only explain how the levers of power behind all these developments work, but go far beyond that to outline paths to world peace.

Leseprobe

A ple a for peace

The authors of this book have deliberately chosen a provocative title to give us a wake-up call. But in fact, this book represents a plea for peace. It is about doing everything possible to prevent the unthinkable, World War III. The authors urge the United Nations to play a stronger role, a better UN that has a stronger peace-building effect than it has so far been able to do.

The authors unreservedly stand up for the United Nations. To put it in the words of former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan: "The United Nations must be transformed into the effective instrument for preventing conflict that it was always meant to be". The authors applaud the United Nations' tireless efforts to improve our world, and they support all UN resolutions in this regard. To quote Kofi Annan again: "Without action, promises are meaningless".

This book is therefore an invitation to the United Nations to act and at the same time an appeal to the community of states to grant the UN the power to act effectively in the interests of humanity. To quote Kofi Annan one last time: "The world must move from an era of legislation to implementation".

The Diplomatic Council, in whose publishing house this book is appearing, is one of the United Nations' closest advisors. The Diplomatic Council expressly supports the concept of multilateralism, i.e. the concerted action of nations for the benefit of humanity.

Dedicated to the next generation

This work is dedicated to our children, nephews and nieces.

They all represent the next generation. May they grow up in peace and freedom and, as adults, ensure that successive generations can also thrive in peace and freedom.

Hang Nguyen, Jamal Qaiser

Content

Preface

First and Second World Wars

The high death tolls

Innumerable wars

People’s right to peace

Failure of the League of Nations

The beginnings of the UN

Basis for a better world

Marginal note: Germany is an enemy state

The UN headquarters in New York

Security Council: procrastination and hesitation

The Security Council

The power to veto

The General Assembly

The UN war

No topic without the UN

The Secretariat

Back-room diplomacy

The International Court of Justice

For states only

USA ignores international justice

ICJ and ICC

Judgements for human rights

USA has international judges prosecuted

Basic right to well-being

The successes of the UN

Successes without peace

The wars of the UN

The decisive test of the Korean War

The joint US/UN war

China versus US/UN pact

The longest war on earth

Vietnam followed Korea

UN bans biological and chemical weapons

Reorganisation within the Security Council

Peacekeepers: the Blue Helmets

UN missions between success and failure

Blue Helmets under attack

Dubious reputation of the Blue Helmets

Blue Helmets and trafficking in women

Nuclear control

Cuban Missile Crisis – the world on the brink

Exit from disarmament

Destruction of the earth

Abuse of the UN

The impotence of international organisations

China no longer rules out a first strike

Global power centres

The end of multilateralism

The US turns its back on international organisations

Angela Merkel's new world order

The new Silk Road

China remains true to the ideals of Karl Marx

Russia on the fence

US soldiers expect war

USA falls behind militarily

Hypothetical attack on Europe

Economic warfare has long been in full swing

Cyberwar – the war on the Internet

Only the tip of an iceberg

Warning to the digital society

Secret services make the cyber world unsafe

Attack on the vaccines

Biological weapons

WHO experts in China

China is responsible

The US military is responsible

Genetically engineered virus

Perfect weapon for violent groups

War propaganda and asocial media

Wilhelm Tell, Che Guevara and Jesus Christ

Is there such a thing as a good dictator?

Victims and aggressors exchange roles

Critical reading requested

Russia and the axis of evil

World War III begins on social media

The storyteller's finest hour

Dunning-Kruger and social bots

"Seen with my own eyes"

Syria – the small world war

Four decades of Assad

The UN plan

The new proxy war

Private mercenaries on the rise

The UN dilemma

Ukraine – the new Cold War

Not a day without concern

Rapprochement with the EU fails

UN appeals to the OSCE remain futile

Crimea belonged to Russia since Catherine the Great

North Korea and NAZI Germany

The origins of North Korea

The Korean War

North Korea today

How dangerous is North Korea really?

USA versus North Korea

The spiral of conflict continues

Hydrogen bomb threat

A surprising climate change

The next Cold War

Sanctions rarely work

The Treaty of Versailles: war instead of peace

Sanctions as a germ cell for new wars

Failure in Afghanistan

Nine-Eleven

War on Terror (WoT)

Unconditional surrender

Afghanistan 2021 was like Saigon 1975

USA as largest arms supplier to terrorists

Russia and China speak out on Afghanistan

New refugee waves to Europe

The Third World War

The War triumvirate

The Thucydides trap

Europe versus America

NATO shifts perspective

Nine-Eleven – the first case of alliance

European army faces huge hurdles

The Arab atom

Global rearmament

Flash war – the killer robots are coming

Arms race in space

Paths to Peace

Small world war, new world war, Cold War 2.0

Happy place and non-place Utopia

About the authors

Hang Nguyen

Jamal Qaiser

Other books published by the authors

About the Diplomatic Council

References and Notes

Preface

After the First World War with 20 million losses, the international community founded the League of Nations with a single goal: to prevent a Second World War. The League of Nations fails. Around 20 years later, preparations began for the Second World War, which cost over 60 million lives. The United Nations Organisation was set up to prevent a Third World War. Has it succeeded so far? That is debatable. In fact, no one has yet declared a Third World War.

Yet war has long since not just been in progress. Worse yet, it has been on the verge of breaking out. Today more wars are raging around the world than ever before. War is rampant on five out of seven continents. The global number of military conflicts has been rising steadily for years, as has the number of victims and refugees who want to escape the wars and save their lives. Even in the biggest global catastrophe of the 21st century to date, the worldwide spread of the coronavirus, the UN has been unable to pass even a binding resolution on a global ceasefire for several months; not to mention the frequently criticised action taken by the World Health Organization (WHO), which is part of the UN, in view of the pandemic. On the contrary, the idea of multilateralism, i.e. coordinated joint action by the community of states, has been more in question since the beginning of the 2020s than during the Cold War.

Let us all keep our fingers crossed that the UN would succeed in securing world peace in the long term. But from all we see as we enter the 2020s, the United Nations will fail just like its predecessor. The next catastrophe or even the Third World War seems inevitable. In view of 500 people dying in wars per day (!) one must ask oneself whether it has not actually erupted a long time ago, even if no one announced it.

Anyone who draws the conclusion that the United Nations is superfluous is, however, vastly mistaken. As weak as the UN is in its political work in many respects, its assistance for people in need is just as strong. Millions of people in many parts of the world are only alive because they received help from the refugee or children's aid organisation, the World Food programme or the United Nations World Health Organization

The UN may fail to save the world, but for those who are saved, it means the world. That is why the United Nations is indispensable, despite all its weaknesses and even if it cannot prevent the next catastrophe or even the Third World War.

Hang Nguyen, Jamal Qaiser

First and Second World Wars

Wars have existed since time immemorial. But never have so many people died in such a brief time as in World War I and World War II. It is not least a terrifying prospect that in a Third World War even more people would lose their lives in an even shorter period, which is what drives peace activists as well as responsible politicians all over the world to try to prevent a third recurrence.

The high death tolls

Almost 20 million people lost their lives in the First World War, including around 9.7 million soldiers and around 10 million civilians. The losses came from many countries: Australia (61,900 dead), Belgium (104,900), Bulgaria (187,500), the German Empire (2.46 million), Denmark (720), Canada (66,900), the Republic of France (1.697 million), Kingdom of Greece (176,000), United Kingdom (994,100), British India (74,000), the Kingdom of Italy (1.24 million), Japan (415), Montenegro (3,000), Austria-Hungary (1.567 million), Ottoman Empire (5 million), New Zealand (18,000), Newfoundland (1,200), Norway (1890), Portugal (89. 200), Kingdom of Romania (680,000), Russian Empire (3.311 million), Kingdom of Serbia (725,000), Sweden (870), South African Union (9,400), United States of America (117,400). In addition, an estimated 21 million people were injured as a result of the war.1

In World War II everything got much worse. The fighting began, apart from a few skirmishes on the German-Polish border, on 1 September 1939, when the liner "Schleswig-Holstein" opened fire on the Westerplatte near Danzig, and ended on 8 May 1945 at 11:01 p m. That is 2077 days or 49,842 hours and 16 minutes. During this time, around 1,000 people died every hour. Overall, World War II claimed the lives of 60-70 million people, including 26.9 million soldiers and around 39 million civilians. Other estimates even assume around 60 to 80 million deaths in World War II.2

The victims came from numerous countries: Australia (30,000 deaths), Belgium (60,000), Bulgaria (32,000), China (13.5 million), Germany (6.355 million), Finland (91,700), France (360,000), Greece (180,000), the United Kingdom (332, 825), India (3.024 million), Italy (300,000), Japan (3.76 million), Yugoslavia (1.69 million), Canada (43,190), New Zealand (10,000), Netherlands (220,000), Norway (10,000), South Africa (9,000), Philippines (100,000), Poland (6 million), Romania (378,000), Soviet Union (27 million), Czechoslovakia (90,000), Hungary (950,000), USA (407,316).3

Well over 100 million dead and injured in two world wars within around 30 years. Soldiers, civilians, men, women, children, destroyed lives, extinguished hopes, indescribable horrors, infinite suffering – in the face of this gigantic destructiveness, the world community wanted to do everything possible with a "global peace organisation" to prevent or at least contain further killing. After the First World War with 20 million losses, the international community of states founded the League of Nations with a single goal: to prevent the Second World War. Unfortunately, the League of Nations failed. Around 20 years later, preparations began for the Second World War, which cost over 60 million lives.

The United Nations Organisation was set up to prevent a Third World War.

Has it succeeded so far? Yes, as far as no one has yet declared World War III. No, as far as more wars are raging in the world today than ever before. The global number of military conflicts has been rising steadily for years, as has the number of victims and refugees who want to escape the wars and save their lives.4

Innumerable wars

The counts by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research showed an average of 18 wars between 2011 and 2019 that took place around the globe every year.5 Thereby, the Institute referred only to "real wars", not to mere military confrontations or conflicts in which violence is occasionally deployed. The institute counted 21 wars in 2020, 15 in 2019, 16 in 2018, 20 in 2017, 18 in 2016, 19 in 2015, 21 in 2014, 18 in 2012 and 20 in 2011. Before 2011 it looked much better: In 2010 there were “only” six wars, in the year before that there were “only” seven wars. In addition to these "real wars", the Heidelberg Institute also recorded so-called "limited wars", which should be added to the "real" ones. Here the numbers were similarly high: 19 limited wars in 2020, 23 in 2019, 25 in 2018, 20 in 2017 and 2016, 24 in 2015, 25 in 2013 and 2012, 18 in 2011, 22 in 2010 and 24 in 2009. An order of magnitude higher by a factor of ten is obtained if one also considers conflicts in the world. The Heidelberg Institute named 319 conflicts in 2020, of which more than half – 180 – were classified as violent.6

The figures were similarly high in previous years: 385 conflicts in 2019, of which 196 were violent, 374 conflicts in 2018, of which 214 were violent, 385 conflicts in 2017, of which 222 were violent, 402 conflicts in 2016, of which 226 were violent, 409 conflicts in 2015, of these again 223 were violent, 424 conflicts in 2014, of which 223 were violent, 414 conflicts in 2014, of which 221 were violent.

Was it better in the past? The analyses by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research say "yes". In 1992, the first year the institute started the research series, the report at the time showed over 100 conflicts and five wars. In 1993 there were already 119 conflicts and 23 wars. Without presenting the Institute's methodology in detail here or discussing the question of defining the differences between "real wars", "limited wars" and "violent conflicts" in detail, one thing is certain: violence is increasing worldwide, not decreasing. People are uprooted, injured, killed. Every day 500 people are killed on average in violent conflicts, that is 182,000 war deaths per annum. Together that is well over 12 million deaths since the end of World War II.7

These numbers could even be too conservative. A study by Global Research suggests that at least 20 million people in 37 states have died in combat operations that can be traced back directly to the United States since the end of World War II. The countries were either attacked directly or driven into civil wars by US intelligence activities.8 All these figures are based on estimates, are subject to questions of definition and are often politically motivated. The crucial question in relation to the subject of this book is, however, simple: will it be possible to prevent another "really great war", a world war. One may rightly complain about the multitude of conflicts around the globe, but how much greater would the suffering of a Third World War in which nuclear weapons were used. In the Cold War between the Western nations under the leadership of the USA and the Eastern Bloc of the Soviet Union under the leadership of Russia, a nuclear conflict was successfully prevented. But there is no guarantee that in the conflict between China and the USA, for example, it will again be possible to avoid the fight with nuclear weapons. In addition, there are completely new forms of attack, for example using biological weapons – the coronavirus pandemic since 2020/21/22 has adequately shown how devastating these could be – killer robots and swarms of drones as well as the new armies for combat in space. All these developments, which will be presented in detail on the following pages, make our world less secure.

The question arises whether it is possible to defuse this potential for conflict through international institutions such as the UN. – an institution that emerged from the awareness that it is always better to resolve conflicts peacefully than to allow them to spiral into war. The idea is that the law of the peoples should apply, a kind of international law, not the law of the mightiest.

People’s right to peace

The idea of a community of states is not new. The term “international law” was first mentioned in 1625 in the book “On the Law of War and Peace” by the Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius. In 1795, the philosopher Immanuel Kant, in his book "Perpetual Peace", described in detail the idea of a "consistently peaceful community of peoples". The Enlightenment brought about the first international peace movement in the 19th century, which led to the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907.

The aim was to develop principles for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts. The idea behind it is great: the abolition of war as a means of dispute between peoples and instead the establishment of a legal process to resolve conflicts. It did not work back then, the League of Nations failed, and with around 20 wars a year today, it is difficult to argue that the UN is more successful. But in spite of all the criticism, one should pause for a moment to appreciate the greatness of the idea of legal process instead of war on which all these efforts are more or less based.

At the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899, 26 states met, and at the second conference in 1907, 44 countries came together to work out an international legal order. It was agreed to set up a court of arbitration in The Hague, but they were not able to establish any binding force for the court rulings of the newly created institution. As early as then, the core question became clear: how much sovereignty do states want to give up in order to submit to a kind of "supranational world order"? The possibilities of enforcing court judgements have already also been discussed, that is to say, the question of an international executive, as represented by the UN's "Blue Helmets" today.

At that time, the binding force was to be determined at a third peace conference, initially planned for 1914 and then 1915, and was institutionalised in the League of Nations as collective security.9 The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is now part of the UN, is the highest judicial organ and is decisively based on the work of the Hague Peace Conferences.

Failure of the League of Nations

The idea of creating a worldwide organisation that would serve as a neutral platform for understanding between states was revived after the First World War. To this end, the victorious powers convened the Paris Peace Conference, at which the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and the founding of the League of Nations was decided.

It is difficult to deny that the Versailles Peace Treaty made a significant contribution, at least in argumentation, to the rise of Hitler and thus to the outbreak of the Second World War. Even then, simple lines of argument were lacking: The Versailles Treaty unduly subjugated Germany and the population was suffering. Nevertheless, we not only tolerated this but defended ourselves – this is how the tenor against the Treaty of Versailles popular in Germany at the time can be summarised.

These are the facts: Germany had to cede Alsace-Lorraine to France and Poznán and West Prussia to Poland, the Memel Territory came under French control, the Hlučín Region went to the newly recreated Czechoslovakia (which much later split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia), the Saar Basin, Danzig and the German colonies were subordinated to the League of Nations.

On the one hand, these comprehensive measures were apparently not strong enough to keep Germany permanently small, but on the other hand they gave the National Socialists weighty arguments to defend themselves against the “imposed peace.” The French Marshal Ferdinand Foch gave an excellent analysis of the Versailles Treaty: “That is no peace. That is a ceasefire for 20 years".10

It was already evident then – as it was later with the founding of the United Nations – that the formation of an alliance of states after a world war in which there are winners and losers has a fundamental design flaw: the winners dictate the conditions. This problem continued when the United Nations was founded as the successor organisation to the League of Nations. In very simplified terms, the UN consists of the Security Council as a mirror of the balance of power at the time, a flexible, military reaction force under the leadership of the Security Council, a group of suborganisations for practically all subject areas of humanity, an allencompassing network of aid organisations and a gigantic bureaucracy built around it.

Back to the League of Nations: As a result of the Paris Peace Conference after the First World War and based on the Fourteen Points put forward by Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations, based in Geneva, began its work on 10 January 1920. The objective at that time was just as lofty as it was later at the UN: lasting peace through a system of collective security, international disarmament and the settlement of possible disputes between states through an arbitration tribunal.

In contrast to the UN, the Constitution of the League of Nations provided for an obligation of all member states to provide military aid "immediately and directly" in the event of a military attack by a country against a member state. True to the principle of "nip it in the bud", this was intended to prevent delays caused by consultation in committees. In an emergency, however, none of the member states adhered to this requirement but operated at their own discretion. Consequently, when the UN was later founded, this obligation was removed, apart from resolutions by the UN Security Council. The opinion it would be better to make nonbinding declarations rather than binding ones had established itself.

With the outbreak of World War II, the failure of the League of Nations was sealed. On 18 April 1946, the 34 remaining member states decided to dissolve the League of Nations with immediate effect. But the idea did not go under: while the Second World War was still raging, the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill revived the idea of a world organisation to ensure peace, which shortly after the war led to the founding of the United Nations Organisation.11

However, Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945 after a long and serious illness and was no longer able to see the founding of the UN on 24 October 1945.

The beginnings of the UN

"Mr. chairman and delegates to the United Nations conference on international organisation: Oh, what a wonderful day this can be in history! ” With these words, US President Harry S. Truman opened the conference on the establishment of the United Nations.12

To this end, diplomats from 50 countries met on 24 April 1945 in San Francisco for the founding conference. With 850 delegates, consultants and other staff – a total of 3,500 people – it was considered the largest international conference of its time to date. It was one of the longest conferences with ten general assemblies and almost 400 committee meetings all spread over a good two months. So, one can say without further ado that the roots of today's megalomania of the United Nations were laid when it was founded.

The bureaucratic approach in San Francisco was equally ground-breaking. Initially, the conference setup a steering committee made up of the heads of delegations from all participating countries. This committee was given the task of deciding on all political questions and all fundamental matters. Even with only one representative per country, the committee size was of course 50 people, which is too confusing for detailed questions. As a result, a 14-member board was elected from the heads of delegation to prepare recommendations for the steering committee.

The draft Charter was then divided into four sections, each of which was examined by one commission. The first commission dealt with the general objectives of the organisation, its principles, membership, the secretariat and the question of the amendments to the charter. The second commission reviewed all the powers and responsibilities of the General Assembly, while the third commission discussed the Security Council. The fourth commission prepared a draft statute for the International Court of Justice. But it did not stop there: the four commissions were again subdivided into twelve specialist committees.13

Anyone who claims today that the UN has become increasingly complex over the years is right but, in all truth, the UN was complicated from the very beginning. Perhaps this is due to its mammoth task – securing world peace – but perhaps it is also the answer to why it is only inadequately able to fulfil this task.

Even then, the struggle to find the right words, the politically correct terms, was already emerging. For example, when releasing colonies into freedom, should the assumption of trusteeship by the United Nations bring the affected state "independence" or "self-government" Even then, the rule was: anyone who thought that it was insignificant, if it brought the people concerned the desired freedom they longed for, had not reckoned with the bureaucrats. The result of the deliberations on this specific question probably already indicated the future of many UN results at that time: It was agreed on the formulation "independence or self-administration".

The competencies of the International Court of Justice gave rise to an extensive debate. The conference decided that Member States would not be obliged to recognize the authority of the Court of Justice, but that they would give their consent to binding case law voluntarily. This non-binding nature, which later often earned the United Nations the reputation of a “paper tiger,” was laid out when it was founded. The accusation that it mainly produces a lot of paper in elaborate coordination processes and meeting marathons, but that it has negligible effect, has repeatedly caught up with the UN during its existence. It can be argued that it is at least a first step to put the "better world" on paper and thereby set goals. Because only those who have goals can set out to meet them – and possibly and hopefully, convince others to follow the same path as well.

But that is exactly what the United Nations often fails to do: it is great at defining lofty goals but often, the way to achieving these is filled with barely perceptible incremental steps. They then wonder why very few play along. As a result, the discrepancy between the goals set and the successes achieved has widened over the decades, as shown by an interim balance sheet on the UN's 75th anniversary. This is also true because in the course of time it has developed and proclaimed increasingly ambitious goals, so that failure on the way there almost seemed inevitable. Many of the roots of this development were laid when the United Nations was founded; this includes the principle of resolutions.

Apart from resolutions of the UN Security Council, all United Nations resolutions are merely recommendations, guidelines that states may or may not adhere to. In other words: the states can easily agree because they know that they do not have to adhere to it anyway.

Basis for a better world

Nevertheless, the founding negotiations took a long time. It was not until 26 June 1945, a good two months after the conference began, that the negotiations were concluded, and the United Nations Charter was solemnly signed by the 50 founding states. US President Harry S. Truman said at the final meeting: “The United Nations Charter, which you have just signed, is a solid foundation on which we can build a better world. History will honour you for it. Between the victory in Europe and the final victory in Japan, in this most destructive of all wars, you have won a victory against war itself. With this Charter the world can begin to look forward to a time when it would be possible for all worthy people to lead a decent life as free human beings".14

The words expressed the hopes of the time after 60 million deaths in World War II. Such a massacre should never be repeated. However, Truman pointed out that it was not just the fine words in the Charter that mattered but above all the implementation, i.e. the application of the Charter: "If we fail to use it, we shall betray all those who have died in order that we might meet here in freedom and safety to create it. If we try to use them selfishly, for the benefit of a single state or a small group of states, we are also guilty of treason".15 More than 75 years later, these words sound like a gloomy prophecy, because precisely because of this, because of the implementation, the UN has failed again and again over all these decades largely because of the self-interest of individual states, namely the veto powers.

On June 28 1945, Poland was added as the 51st founding state; the country could not be signed two days earlier because the formation of the government had not yet been completed.16 Officially, the UN has only existed since 24 October 1945. On that day, the Charter was also signed by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the USA and many other countries. The UN and its member states have created the Charter of the United Nations as a working basis. It defines the fundamental principles of intergovernmental cooperation as well as the goals and tasks of the world organisation.

From the outset it emerged from the Charter that the United Nations did not see itself as a world government. Accordingly, they do not enact any laws, only recommendations, which in the UN language are called resolutions. The resolutions are usually moral and cautionary but ultimately non-binding. Only one exception was made to this: The resolutions of the UN Security Council are fundamentally binding under international law.

Only states are permitted to be members of the United Nations. Non-governmental organisations such as the Diplomatic Council, whose publisher is issuing this book, can accredit themselves to the UN with observer and advisory status so as to be heard. The UN has, it seems, almost innumerable main and subsidiary organs, specialised agencies and programmes, which represent an extremely complex structure. In international politics, the United Nations appears either as a forum – for example, the General Assembly –, as an instrument – for example for UN member states – or even as an actor – among other things in the form of the UN Secretary-General.

Marginal note: Germany is an enemy state

It is only worth a side note that Germany has been listed as an "enemy state" in the UN Charter from the beginning and is still today. Articles 53, 77 and 107 deal with "any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter" – this includes Germany. Every UN country has the right to intervene militarily in the countries covered by this clause – even without a further UN mandate but only in the event of a "renewal of aggressive policy". In practice, this enemy state clause has simply been ignored for decades.17 However, it has not lost any of its validity. Rather, it is an example of how much the United Nations is in need of reform – not only with regard to formulations in the Charter but in almost all areas to gain the strength needed to counter a Third World War.

The UN headquarters in New York

After the League of Nations based in Geneva had failed, the United Nations set up its headquarters in London as the successor organisation before moving to New York. The US billionaire John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated an approximately seven-hectare large former slaughterhouse site on the East River of Manhattan, which was given the status of an international territory. On 24 October 1949, the foundation stone was laid for the new UN headquarters in New York. The extensive building complex was designed by a group of well-known architects under the leadership of Le Corbusier and Oscar Niemeyer. It was completed in 1951, and the United Nations moved into its new headquarters a year later.18 At the time, the USA was one of the most ardent advocates of the UN concept: they even granted an interest-free loan for the construction of the building.

The UN high-rise on the East River in Manhattan has become the symbol of the United Nations. This is possibly indicative: the 39-story high-rise is home to the secretariat, i.e. a large part of the UN bureaucracy. In this respect, the UN landmark is truly a homage to the bureaucracy, which underlines the accusation that is regularly made that the UN is almost suffocating from a bloated bureaucracy.

In addition to the headquarters in New York, there are other official UN offices in Vienna, Geneva and Nairobi.

Security Council: procrastination and hesitation

The United Nations is divided into six main bodies, which are listed in Article 7 of the Charter of the United Nations. These are the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice and the Trusteeship Council, whose activities have been suspended but which we mention here for the sake of completeness.19

The Security Council

The UN Security Council is the only UN body that can pass resolutions that are binding under international law, making it the most powerful organ. According to Article 24 of the UN Charter, it bears “the main responsibility for maintaining world peace and international security” and it can also legitimize coercive measures such as sanctions or the use of force. A total of 15 states are represented in the Security Council, including the five permanent members China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and the USA. The remaining members are elected by the General Assembly for a two-year term, whereby a regional proportional representation is observed. Security Council decisions require a majority of nine votes, including the five permanent members. They thus have a de facto right of veto.20

The power to veto

The inability of the United Nations to make its only body that can pass resolutions binding under international law at all, the Security Council, a strong contender for peace, justice and humanity, is a direct consequence of the veto principle of this body. The five permanent members of the Security Council – the United States of America, the Russian Federation (since 1991, previously the Soviet Union), the People's Republic of China (since 1971, previously Taiwan), the United Kingdom and France – wanted to ensure at all costs that there could be no decisions against their interests. They therefore stipulated in Article 27 of the UN Charter that no decision can be reached if even one of the members in the Security Council objects. This veto right was due to the circumstances at the time. The founding members are essentially the victorious powers of the Second World War.

The ultimately victorious struggle against the Third Reich had united them – and after the horrors of the war, they continued to be united in the desire that such a thing should never happen again. Although China was not considered a victorious power, it was included in the Council primarily as a counterweight to Japan; after all, the Japanese had fought side by side with Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy in the Second World War.