UN Unfit For Purpose

After the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was set up in the hope that it could prevent further terrible conflict. A Security Council was appointed to specifically oversee areas where potential warfare could break out. The five permanent members of that council - the five main victors in World War II - were the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Russia and China; each of the permanent members was granted the power of veto, so that any military intervention would require the consent of all five countries. These were noble aspirations of introducing democracy into scenarios of violence during a period of difficult political and social reconstruction. Unfortunately, the long passage of time appears to have rendered these constructs unworkable. Syria is a country in chaos. The UN estimates that around 9,000 people have died since pro-democracy protests began in March 2011. Regardless of a recent UN-brokered ceasefire, lethal aggression is continuing; this week an explosion in Hama took more innocent lives. France is now saying that the Security Council should consider the use of force in Syria as the peace plan is failing. Britain and the USA (although preferring to be non-interventionist) would almost certainly be willing to go along with using force as a last resort which we now must have reached. Yet the force option will probably not go ahead due to the veto of the other permanent members. Russia and China have their own agendas: they are anti-American (just watch the Russia Today news channel and see that every other story is slating the US!); they are worried about sacrificing their own economic deals (i.e. oil) that they have previously brokered with the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, as then they would have to share the spoils with other world powers; and they are concerned about losing dominant influence in a prime political area. Basically, Russia and China are gladly putting their own nationalistic egos first, and genocide a distant second. Shame on them, eternal shame.

Let 'em fight!

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to dominate the news. Is it really necessary to deluge us with this unnecessary feud? I can't help feeling that both the Israelis and the Palestinians forgot a long, long time ago exactly what this war was about. Forget the territorial disputes (and that's what it was originally, purely territorial), the two countries simply desire - or indeed enjoy - vengeance, retaliation, and all out victorious demonstrations of power! The UN has been rendered redundant by the United States' unwillingness to condemn Israel because there is a large Jewish community in America. (The UN's veto system is another matter entirely!) But blame has to be apportioned equally between the two rival countries because neither of them has any moral high ground other than "they bombed us so we're bombing them"! It seems that no politicians have any recognition of an idealistic conflict of principles anymore. So, as far as I'm concerned, just let them fight it out amongst themselves. If Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, or any other Middle Eastern country wants to get involved, then let them. The morality disappeared long ago. Until these countries are able to realise the simple principle that killing is wrong, there is little hope left for any of them. Sorry if that sounds a little bleak, but perhaps we should focus a bit more on our own social morality.

Irony For The Unintelligent

The band James have just revealed the sleeve design for their upcoming album release; it features a baby playing with some toy building blocks and a gun. It refers to a recent incident in the good ol' US of A where a ten-month old child was legitimately granted a firearms certificate! The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK have banned this design from being featured on any billboards for fear that it may encourage younger people to use guns...What?! I ask you, how do these authority figures in the ASA get superior positions of employment with mighty powers of censorship when they can't even understand the use of irony? To anyone with more than three brain cells to knock together it's clear that the James album is anti-guns and is in fact mocking the ridiculously liberal (or should that be right-wing Republican) American gun laws. And exactly how stupid are the British youth in the twenty-first century meant to be? Does the ASA truly believe that gun crime originates or is vitally encouraged by billboard promotions? The contradictory madness of society never ceases to amaze me: while pacifist James fans listen to the pleasantly inspirational tunes and consider an ironic front cover that they weren't allowed to see advertised beforehand, they can be secure in the knowledge that a ten-month old child somewhere in America may grow up one day and become a little bit unbalanced by perpetual social repression just in time for him to shoot up a school and blame it on people who will refuse to listen; because that's how gun crime really originates.