The United Nations – It Kinda Works (cartoon movement.com)

I told you back in October that the mess in Gaza was going to be ugly. I told you so! It is brutal stuff to watch. And it could be stopped if only the UN had the impact on world affairs that we always thought it should have.

This is like a schoolyard fight. Some back-stabbing little prick (call them Hamas) beats the crap out of a helpless kindergarten kid, who we’ll call Kibbutznik. The little prick knows that the kid’s big brother (the IDF) is likely to beat the crap out of him for it, but he does it anyway. And in the process, he steals something really valuable and refuses to give it back. 

As predicted, the big brother steps in and begins to administer a savage beating. And the other kids in the school yard watch. At first, they say “well, it serves that little prick right. He started it”. After a little bit however, they begin to say “OK, he’s had enough”. But the big brother is really pissed and he continues the beating. The onlookers become really concerned, and they shout “Stop it! You’re gonna kill him”. 

That’s about where we stand now. And at this juncture, there are about three ways this can go.

First, the kids can stand by and watch the victim’s big brother beat the back-stabbing little prick to death. Since this is all being televised, we really don’t want to watch that, because it’s ugly. But the big kid isn’t stopping because the nasty little prick hasn’t said he’s sorry, and he hasn’t returned the valuables which he’s still holding hostage.

Second, all the other kids in the playground can take sides and step in and become combatants instead of bystanders. This kind of escalation in the schoolyard leads to bloody noses and maybe a few broken bones. In the Middle East, it could dangerously destabilize the entire region. 

Third, the teacher could come out and break up the fight. Who is the teacher here? Who’s supposed to be the adult in the room? I nominate the UN for that position. So, where are they? 

Well, the teachers are well aware of the fighting going on in the playground, but they can’t deal with it because they’re all in a meeting trying to decide whether or not it’s the Hamas kid or the IDF one who gets failing grades for “plays well with other children” on their report card. The proper assignment of blame seems more important to them than the urgent need to interrupt the beating. 

In 1964, I was twelve years old. I recall hearing about the Canadian soldiers going to Cyprus to participate in the UN Peacekeeping force there. UN soldiers with blue helmets were standing bravely between two armed camps and keeping the peace, and I was proud of our Canadian contingent. It wasn’t just a Mediterranean picnic either. In 1974, after ten years of enforced calm, the situation exploded. Turkey landed armed forces on Cyprus and hostilities erupted. Three Canadian soldiers were killed and 17 others were wounded trying to keep hostile forces from engaging in all-out war. Things are pretty quiet now, but Canada still has a small force on Cyprus 60 years after that first deployment.

And Cyprus wasn’t an isolated case. The UN web-site tells us that there are twelve active peacekeeping missions and a total of 71 that have been mobilized since 1948. So, we do this. We know how to do this. And although it’s dangerous and dirty work, breaking up fights between hostile factions in the schoolyard appears to work. 

What would a peacekeeping mission to Israel and Gaza look like? Well, it would be useful if it included significant contingents from the Middle East countries which have moved to normalize relationships with Israel – Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirate, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. The messaging needs to be “Israel, we’re on your side, and we want to help straighten out this mess.” A demonstration that the Arab world owns the problem and is working for a suitable solution is important.  

The second thing the peacekeeping contingent needs is American participation. Israel is largely a creation of America. From 1946

to 2022, the US has provided about $150B in support to Israel. Military support over that timeframe is estimated to be some 70000 pieces of weaponry, including aircraft and missiles. To this point Joe Biden has been strongly supportive of Israel while privately urging restraint. A UN mission would strengthen the US position in telling Israel to stop on penalty of losing future economic and military support. And it would provide a “don’t worry, we’re going to try to make this right” tone.

The third thing that has to happen is that Hamas needs to be told to release their hostages immediately. I hear those calling for a cease-fire and demanding that Israel act humanely. And I know that the proposed cease-fire resolutions do include the release of hostages. But Israel has no reason to abide by a ceasefire if Hamas doesn’t promptly return all the hostages.  And alas, if Israel agreed to the ceasefire there’s little reason to believe that Hamas would do their part. So, a UN peacekeeping force can come in with that as a first priority. 

The “release the hostages” message needs to come from within the Arab world led by the moderate nations that are friendly to Israel. But it also needs to come from Iran. In the complicated politics of the middle east, I’m not sure just what levers can be used to put pressure on Iran, but I suspect that Egypt, Jordan and the UAE would have a better chance of pulling on the right levers. And certainly, a UN resolution to install a peacekeeping force makes it harder for Iran to support Hamas in the fight without bringing down the weight of the world on their own necks. It’s one thing for Hamas to shoot back at Israelis – it’s quite another for them to shoot at UN soldiers from America and say Egypt.

Hamas will say that they want more prisoners released from Israeli jails. But the answer to that is “we’ll try to sort that out later”. Right now, if you want the carnage to stop you have to release all Israeli hostages and we’ll force Israel to stay at home while we help clean up Gaza.

Cleaning up Gaza needs to include an agreement to de-militarize Gaza. All those tunnels need to be inspected by UN troops and all weapons found there need to be removed. And if there’s an argument to be made that the tunnel system shouldn’t be destroyed, I don’t know what it is.

There has been much discussion in the news of the problem that Israel faces in figuring out what to do “the day after”. After Hamas is destroyed, as Israel pledges they will do, who governs in Gaza? How is that authority to be chosen, and how will that work? Well, a UN peacekeeping mission can take that problem off Israel’s table. If we can have peacekeepers in Cyprus for 60 years, we can send a UN force to Gaza for long enough to figure out how to establish a responsible and peaceful government there.

So why can’t that happen? I suspect that the answer is that the UN is a body whose day is done. The evidence suggests that the UN isn’t a body committed to keeping peace in the world. It’s a debating society where members get to air their grievances and try to make points on each other. I really wonder whether Canada is well rewarded for the money that we spend each year on UN membership.

Recently Leslyn Lewis, the crackpot anti-vaccine, anti-abortion MP from the rural southwest Ontario riding of Haldimand Norfolk, made the news by supporting a petition that would have Canada leave the UN and all its subsidiary bodies such as the World Health Organization. Well, I really don’t want to go that far. But given that the UN has found no way to intervene in either Ukraine or Gaza, isn’t it about time to ask how the UN can become more relevant?

Charles Adler, writing in today’s (Jan 6^th) Winnipeg Free Press in response to Ms Lewis’s support for the petition, rightly dismisses the idea as a right-wing isolationist notion that would diminish Canada’s standing as a world citizen. But he notes “Yes, Iran occasionally chairs the human rights committee at the United Nations. So rational people have a good reason to kick up some dust at the United Nations. The UN can be fairly criticized for being a highly unreliable agent of peace in the current Israel-Gaza conflict.” 

Iran is an arbiter of human rights policy? Give me a break. It’s hard to take the UN seriously when Iran, with its morality police, and its determination to wipe Israel off the map, would be given a voice in determining human rights policy for the UN. 

I’d love to see the veto capability removed from the great powers on the Security Council. It’s ridiculous that a motion to censure Russia for its actions on Ukraine fails to pass because Russia has the power to veto it.

(By the way, on a totally different track, it’s also ridiculous that Turkiye had a veto on Sweden’s entry into NATO. I’d vote to kick Turkiye out of NATO except for that old saw about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.)

The UN website makes this statement about its purpose: “The United Nations was created in 1945, following the devastation of the Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international peace and security. The UN accomplishes this by working to prevent conflict, helping parties in conflict make peace, deploying peacekeepers, and creating the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish.” In that context, why should Russia get to vote on a motion of censure? 

I think it’s entirely reasonable to pass a rule in the UN that says that any party or parties directly implicated in a developing conflict shall not have a vote in determining UN policy on the matter. You cannot referee your own fight.

Ms Lewis is wrong. We shouldn’t leave the UN. But Canada should begin vigorously advocating for changes to modernize that institution and make it relevant. 

Perhaps the UN needs to drastically shrink in size and scope, and return to its roots – the prevention of armed conflicts. War is the enemy for which the UN was formed. The UN website includes a listing of “Issues/Campaigns”. The following list is not exhaustive by any means, but it’s a sample of things that don’t appear to be very obviously linked to maintaining peace in the world.

• Observances (International Day of X)
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Climate Action
• Global Crisis Response Group
• Call to Action for Human Rights
• Disability Inclusion Strategy
• Fight Racism
• Hate Speech
• Safety of Journalists
• Rule of Law 
• Spotlight Initiative (Violence against women and girls)
• Preventing Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
• The Transatlantic Slave Trade (dedicated to preserving the history)
• Roadmap for Digital Cooperation (UN proposals for a world wide internet protocol etc)
• Countering Disinformation
• Women Rise for All (“paving the way toward a resilient and sustainable economic recovery with women’s equity at its core.”
• Stop the Red Sea Catastrophe (Oil cleanup from sunken tanker)

Now I’m sure all of those initiatives have an admirable goal. But what the hell do they have to do with the UN goal of establishing and maintaining peace? I don’t think the world is ready for a World Government yet. But that is what the UN seems to be aspiring to become. 

Let us consider, for a minute, the UN issue on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. I understand why that’s a big issue, but is that not an issue for national governments to address? If the national government of Thailand is content to accept the exploitation of children in its sex trade, that isn’t a threat to world peace. Now Canada might observe the widespread practice of child prostitution in Thailand and we either decide that we can just hold our noses and continue business as normal, or we decide to protest about what we see. If we really can’t stomach it, we could object through normal diplomatic channels. We don’t need the UN to do that for us. And if we wanted a multi-national approach, we could recruit an alliance of Thailand’s trading partners and broker an agreement on sanctions against Thailand until they establish protection for their children. 

The fewer things we have to argue about in the UN, the better chance we have of obtaining a consensus about the things that really matter, like Gaza. I think that the truth is that the UN is a corrupt body in which backroom horse-trading determines the outcome of a lot of votes. So, let’s limit the scope of things about which we can disagree.

The UN shouldn’t be a debating society about the preservation of democracy. It shouldn’t be a venue for countries to accuse each other of a plethora of sins and misdeeds. What it should be is a determined and active body that can intervene to stop armed conflict. And right now, it’s failing miserably. In 1964, I thought the UN was a bright beacon of hope for the world. I no longer have that opinion.