Part Twenty-Nine
(This is a translation from the original Arabic, offered so that my grandchildren, and others of their generation, may understand something of their history— a history they were denied when they were uprooted without choice.)
Where To: What Have We to Do with the United Nations? — (5)
In the previous instalment, I ended by questioning why certain Arab states are members of the United Nations and have ratified treaties that limit their capacity to defend themselves, while their enemies refrain from committing to similar agreements.
A conversation with my friend then unfolded about how the Arabs might live outside the international organization. From this discussion, I derived several conclusions, the most significant of which is that the victors have the power to shape the minds of most people, leading them to accept as natural and acceptable what is, in fact, far from it. The thousands of years of human history, which unfolded without a global organization managed by the West, are dismissed as irrelevant. European political development, which has given rise to extreme movements and devastating wars, decreed a century ago that the only solution was to establish its own organization. Through persuasion, the West convinced the world that membership in this body was the sole path to salvation—just as it has convinced others that “democracy” is the foundation of political systems and that liberalism is the inevitable outcome of world history. So much so that Francis Fukuyama, after publishing his now-infamous book The End of History, was forced to admit that he had been wrong.
A question from my friend caught my attention: How can we withdraw from the United Nations or any of its agencies or institutions? The European conditioning of minds had indeed turned concepts on their head. The rational question should have been: Why are we joining this organization in the first place? Before asking about the feasibility of withdrawal, the logical thing would be to ask why one should enter into any contract in the first place. You would never sign an agreement, as an individual, without first ensuring—at the very least—that your rights are protected within it. So, how could you possibly enrol your family, your tribe, your city, or your entire nation in a contract that guarantees no protection for anyone?
I am not calling for isolation; on the contrary, I am one of the few in this world who believes that every individual has the right to move freely, to reside anywhere, without the need for visas or even a passport, as long as they have some form of identification. I do not advocate for isolation, but rather for coexistence and mutual understanding, as Allah (Exalted be He) said: “And We made you peoples and tribes so that you may know one another” (Quran, 49:13). This coexistence must be founded on equality, justice, and the protection of rights. This is not achievable under a global system controlled by the powerful, where they alone decide what is permissible for them and what is not for others.
My friend replied, “But this is the way the world works.” To which I answered, “That’s exactly why I refuse it!” I call for a just international system, and if such a system is not achievable, then I am not obliged to accept a system that is unjust. I can establish relations with any country that agrees to treat me on equal terms, without needing the United Nations. If a global organization is to exist, it must be founded on a contract between parties that are equal in rights, duties, and obligations. If that cannot be guaranteed, then it should not exist.
When I speak about the Arabs and the kind of Arab state I envision, I do not want it to be part of the United Nations in its current form, as I have already explained.
- The Arab state I desire would not join an international organization that allows five countries to control the fate of all nations, as is the case today.
- It would not join an organization where the five permanent members of the Security Council can veto any decision, allowing them to do as they please without any accountability.
- It would not join an organization that permits these five powers to unilaterally decide what weapons they may possess while preventing others from having access to weapons of their own choosing.
- It would not join an organization that allows five countries to impose blockades on any nation, starving, humiliating, and destroying its land until it submits to slavery or is wiped out.
- It would not join an organization where politicians can issue binding decisions without those decisions being subject to independent judicial review or the ability for the affected state to challenge them.
- It would not join an organization where there is an advisory court without true authority, unless that court is the supreme authority in determining the legality of decisions, with judges from each member state, and any disputes or decisions made by the organization would be resolved by a panel of nine judges, none of whom would be from a state involved in the dispute or allied with any of the disputing parties.
- It would not join an organization that applies international law to those states that declare adherence to treaties while leaving others untouched. Rules of international law must apply to all states equally, or they are not truly law.
- It would not join an organization headquartered in one of the five permanent members’ countries, where all representatives of member states would be subject to the political decisions of the host country regarding whether they can attend or not. The headquarters of the organization should belong to the organization and not be subject to the laws of any single state.
- It would not join an organization where the contracting states are not equally represented in its management, leaving Europeans alone to manage the organization, its agencies, and its institutions. For instance, one might hear someone without authorization declaring that the electricity of Zaporozhye belongs to Ukraine, while the oil of Syria can be stolen by the United States, because they are the ones who granted me residency and ensure my safety!
These are just a few of the issues with the current United Nations, and any one of them would be enough to justify my refusal to be under its umbrella—so how much more so when all of them are combined?
If, however, a global organization were to be established based on the just principles I have outlined—or those that the majority of the world’s states accept—then I would be among the first to call for joining it and participating in the pursuit of justice, peace, and mutual understanding. If that proves impossible, then what need is there for an organization that takes everything from me and gives nothing in return?
Now that I have said what I wanted about the international organization that I hope the desired Arab state will join, let me move on to discuss what that state would look like…
To be continued…