Useless

A very aggressive headline, right? But I cannot find another way to call so many world and regional organizations with such a passive behavior before the slaughtering being carried out, for instance, in the Gaza Strip. What is their purpose if the global order does not get involved? Haven´t they prestige and power to sway the course of events? Or are they just blah, blah, blah? I do believe this!

Radicals have always questioned the efficiency of entities such as the United Nations (UN) and its branch offices, in its position as an observer, or little-to-none ability to solve real, major, urgent problems such as this historical war between Israel and Palestine —and other situations—, due to already-known reasons.

This armed conflict, which has extended for a month, resurfaced the debate on the competence, necessity, and actually usefulness of this international body. People cast doubts on the fact that it may guarantee peace and safety after numerous signs of inaction, favoritism in its demands, deaf ears to those who make rightful claims and show proof of what is really happening.

The UN has consistently called for union. However, the UN policies seem ambiguous because although a large part of the world's nations are represented there, it does not really have jurisdiction outside the conclave. Their leaders do behave with the projection of a bombastic entity, but in practice, they have no authority to decide. They are only limited to exert some pressure. If not, let's think about what this entity has achieved 80 years alter its foundation. How many conflicts has this entity actually avoided?

So far, I dare say that they have not managed to take action on any issue other than to denounce it, especially regarding any war situation. On other issues, the UN has been more active. However, The UN goal is to safeguard world peace and it sounds very poetic, only to have impact on emotions, rather than facts.

And while the world puts its hopes in it, the UN has become a platform where people talk and it is not even guaranteed that people worldwide can hear the voices raised there. And it happens because the elites are very good at silencing what they do not want to be heard.

I am remembering so many tragedies that have had a spokesperson on that podium surrounded by dark marble, so many votes to lift blockades, and wars are merely statistics on the information board.

Mankind is in pain in every possible way, especially due to the abandonment of sensitivity, of feelings of solidarity, of knowing right from wrong. Therefore, shouldn't there really be a global way to urge, to command respect, to call to conscience and force us to behave in a civilized way? I say this, since we cannot, and we need others to guarantee our own safety. Or is it not convenient for us?

Africa is full of examples that prove the partiality of the UN, Latin America too. The contradiction between what the UN promotes and what the UN allows is actually the letter of introduction of this entity that says it is against injustice and suffering, but cannot, due to a flaw in its own structure, dissuade or truly negotiate in favor of urgent causes threatening global stability.

We observe double standards, and it is not necessary to have many elements but to make easy calculations to verify that between conflicts, economic interests matter a lot. In eight decades, the planet has experienced conflicts of all kinds, hunger and ignorance continue, genocides too, and everything happens under the gaze, the silent complicity, and mild speeches that, unfortunately, contribute nothing to this chess of life and death, in which poor people suffer the most. 

It requires more than will to maintain harmonious international relations.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Díaz / CubaSí Translation Staff