Why can’t the United Nations stop the war?

Author/ Weihong Rong/ 2024Oct12

【This article is an english translation。For accurate ideas and views, please refer to the original version : 联合国为什么无法阻止战争？】

The Russian-Ukrainian war and the Palestinian-Israeli war have lasted for a long time. Over the past few years, despite the efforts of all parties in the international community, the problem has not been resolved, even become more and more serious. Now the conflicts have spread to other regions, such as Lebanon, Iran,…… . What’s the problem? There are various views in society, one of them is that the functioning mechanism of the United Nations is problematic and needs to be reformed.

As a matter of common sense, the United Nations is an institution that is built and runs on everyone’s taxes. The purpose is to provide a place where people from all over the world come together to speak their senses openly and fairly. But reality works away from that object. For example, recently there was a very important meeting in the United Nations called the General Debate of the Security Council. Literally, the conference should have a question-and-answer session on the speaker’s statement, and debate some problematic points. As we all know, the truth becomes clearer when the controversial views are debated more. As long as the reason is clearly explained, the problem will be solved naturally.

Regrettably, however, the representatives withdrew after they gave speaches. There was no debate. I think this arrangement is very flawed. The content of the speech condenses the speaker’s thoughts and is a comprehensive expression of his views on the overall event. The reason why the conflicts have been continued for a long time is that there are inappropriate aspects of the speaker’s ideological views and handling methods. The post-speech questioning is a clarification of the facts, as well as a correction of some of his ideological views. It is a very important stage. And the current arrangement clearly makes it impossible to correct the mistakes of the speaker’s thinking. If erroneous thinking is not corrected, many international disputes will be protracted and cannot be resolved. The United Nations conference hall has become a place where people shout at each other, like ordinary hooligans quarrel during street fights. This kind of words and actions are extremely incommensurate with the elegant hall. Gentleman’s refinement is swept away totally.

Therefore, in order to put an end to the war quickly, it is recommended that the United Nations be reformed as necessary. The reform mentioned here does not refer to the reform of adding one seat or decreasing one seat, but should examine the ideological concepts and specific operational means of the overall operation. We should return to the original intention of establishing the United Nations and build it into a truly open, fair and just temple of civilization that can handle international affairs and social disputes.

If the current system is adhered to: no questions to the speech, and the speakers do not answer questions… Then each speaker will speak his own words, and accusing each other , Yelling at each other… Hiding the facts and engaging in black-box operations,….. This system leaves a huge amount of room for the powerful people to operate,…….。 In this kind of ideological environment, everyone is not focused on solving problems , not focused on the pursuit of truth, but on how to play strategy and how to play scheming …… The problem becomes complex and difficult to solve.

The United Nations should promote/encourage open, fair and just debate and actively create an ideological environment for the pursuit of truth. Only by establishing a civilized environment will everyone take care of their own image, and then they will gradually become Rational. Imagine this, when a person in a suit and leather shoes stands on the podium to give a speech, he is exposed to lies in public; his Speaking is questioned by everyone because of its inconsistency of logic; the speach is incoherent and can not self-justification,…… In this case, he will not be able to step down. Because he was afraid this situation, his words and deeds would have to be restrained, and he would show a civilized and reasonable posture. As long as everyone is willing to sit down and reason calmly. The problem will be easy to solve. However, human society is not so simple, everyone has his own selfish. Therefore, the general elite will play all kinds of tricks to try to avoid this happening. So that they can talk nonsense and achieve their own unsightly goals. And the current system provides them with just that kind of room to operate. That’s why the current predicament arises.

Some people argue that after all, the speakers are persons with elite status, and they must be respected. Ordinary people should fear the powerful. The system design must not let such a situation occurs that the powerful unable to step down the stage. This view is incorrect. That is right if the powerful speaker can’t answer the questions, which means that listeners’ doubts have poked at the pain point. When the thoughts of the powerful cannot be justified, it shows that their ideological views and methods of dealing with the problem are absurd. This is precisely what causes social chaos. There is no need to save face for the vanity of the powerful, but let the world lose peace and make millions of people suffer. The real magnates should bring peace to mankind, prosperity to the world, justice to society, and truth to ideas…. And not the other way around.

Upholding fairness and justice and pursuing ideological truth should always be higher than safeguarding the personal dignity of the powerful. If we do not change outdated ideas and concepts, and if we do not reform the system, it will be very difficult to get out of the predicament now. And the problems have dragged on for a long time, the people have been suffering. Lossing wealth is only a small matter, life will suffer a major loss. Failure to reform the system has the following consequences:

1) The truth and reason for the dispute cannot be known. The two sides of the conflict will blame each other continuesly. The conflict can easily escalate if it remains unsolved,

2) The chain of war interests has not been analyzed in detail, so that those who benefit from the war have the original motivation to promote the war.

3) Withou t deep discussion , an ideological consensus cannot be formed , it will be difficult to shake the existing pattern of interests. An irrational pattern of interests can lead to social injustice， which will leads to social unrest.

In order to solve the problem as soon as possible, the United Nations should create an reasoning environment in which everyone is frank and reasonable. It is necessary to criticize and stop the style and attitude of fighting and shouting each other fiercely. It is necessary to squese the space of manipulation and conspiracy to the minimum ……. If we do not carry out reforms, it will be difficult to solve the conflicts, even if we spend more years to Mediate.

There must be a real debate. It is necessary to answer every question seriously, without evasion, ambiguity, or prevarication. It is necessary to spend enough time researching and discussing ideological issues (there is enough time for us to debate. Nearly three years have passed since the Russia-Ukraine war alone. If these three years had been used to debate the ideological problems, they would have been solved long time ago).

It is necessary to distinguish the winners and losers in the debate . And through all-round and in-depth debates, we must finally reach a result acceptable to all parties. The current situation is that some people simply reject the debate on the assumption that a consensus will never be able to reach. But the real purpose of this view is to cover up their own shortcomings, so as to avoid the dilemma of not being able to get off the stage during the debate… This is not right. If a person wants to become a truly respected magnate, he should not have such dirty crooked thoughts. The attitude of “not arguing”; the attitude of “avoiding controversy”; or this person comes to the stage to say a few words, that person comes to the stage to say a few words, and when he finishes his speach , leaves immediatly , does not accept questions, does not answer questions…… This way of holding meetings will certainly not solve the problem. It is only a waste of time, energy, and money.

There maybe things that cannot be said openly in every goverment. Some goverments have concerns about promoting a completely open debate at the United Nations. But compared to the lives of tens of millions of people, this difficulty is actually very small, insignificant, and should be overcome. The result of failure to solve the problem is constant social unrest, and the lives of people in the troubled areas are in dire straits. The conflict is even likely to escalate further.

If we are afraid of embarrassment by delving into the past, we can also take a forward-looking approach. For example, without delving into the past, the debates only focus on talking about the present and the future (solving the difficulties of the present is the most important and urgent). Everyone (the wider the number of people participating in the debate, the easier it is to solve the problem. The discussion within a small magnate often leads to the situation of Losing sight of one thing while focusing on another). The best way is to sit down and discuss calmly, rationally, and comprehensively:

What are the reasons for the conflicts? It is necessary to analyze the mechanism in depth. Of course, the positions and visions of each country are different, and perceptions can vary greatly. But that’s okay. Say it all, discuss it in deep, and we will find a reliable conclusion at last.

How do you plan to resolve these disputes? What is the solution that is fair and reasonable for all parties to the conflict? Come up with your specific solution.

What kind of black box operations do the elites have? How do they use these methods? What can be done to stop these operations? What kind of solutions should be used to deal with/crack the various possible black box schemes? (These reflections and discussions will test a person’s character and position, as well as his/her understanding of society and human nature, and test his/her true logical thinking skills.)

What are the shortcomings of the current system? For example, what kind of electoral fraud is there and how can it be prevented? What about the dictatorship of judges in the context of judicial independence? What is the relationship between these institutional deficiencies and the emergence of social chaos?

What do you think the ideal system should look like?

How do you plan to achieve your ideal system?

……

These issues must be discussed in detail, earnestly, and bit by bit. It is easy to deviate the right path if we don’t discuss the details, but just outline a blur system (such as propagating that so-and-so system is very good, very good…..,Please believe this is the ultimate system of mankind, the end of the systems…). And then blindly implementing, or even violently promoting… . If we do things in this way, everyone will be a victim in the end,.

The big problem now is that, due to years of one-sided propaganda, many people firmly believe that the present democracy theory is the truth. According to this logic, the use of violence to promote the truth has become a conformity with the trend of history, no matter how many people die. The death is the price of promoting the truth,…… So a few days ago, there were a lot of people cheering for South Korea attacking North Korea. Fortunately, the South Korean people woke up and held anti-war demonstrations. It is lucky that the two sides did not fight in the end.

If ideological issues are not clearly addressed, this kind of turmoil will continue to occur, and even spread to China somedate. The elites, knowing their own wrongs, would certainly not agree to open public debates. The reason why they can be so stubborn is because there are many believers who believe in the present democracy theory, which gives them the confidence to talk nonsense. The most urgent task at the moment is to criticize the old ideology and establish a new one. The best place to accomplish this historic mission is the United Nations. Because the United Nations was built with everyone’s taxes, it should be fair and impartial in presiding over such debates (real debates, not just having the name). Other media outlets lack this condition. The various media, as well as the guests hired by the media, generally speak for the funders, and there will be no fair and impartial position. In fact, if a person doesn’t speak for the funders, and the funders won’t invite him to their platforms to express their opinions… If this situation does not change, it will be difficult to solve the problems.

For detailed analysis and explanation of these issues, please refer to the following articles. [市场原教旨主义批判], [Is the Open Ideological Forum a Utopian Fantasy?], [Forum Proceedings] and other articles.