Trending
One of the things I remember hearing a lot about as a young grade school student was the United Nations.
It was considered an answer for world peace, an avenue for political solutions to international issues, We thought it would prevent total all-out war, like what was seen in World War I and World War II.
Events since the millennium have indicated that the U.N. of the 21st century is not fulfilling its mission to maintain a peaceful world.
It hasn't prevented acts of terrorism. It still hasn't produced a unified worldwide response to climate change. It didn't lead to a global action plan to address the COVID pandemic.
Lastly in 2022 it didn't deter the war in which Russia invaded Ukraine.
Why doesn't the U.N. have more of an impact?
Why doesn't it exert more influence when there's a strong desire for peace among nearly all of its members?
As a start toward answering those questions, it's important to consider the modern role of both nationalism and fundamentalism.
When the U.N. was formed more than 70 years ago, it was thought that national self interest could be kept in check when necessary. The main goal involved working toward the greater good for people throughout the world.
The colonial era of the 18th and 19th centuries is when a global politics began to emerge, Colonialism had its evils, but as a general rule mother countries wanted to bring good living conditions to their colonies.
The 20th century brought an end to colonial empires. Newly independent countries had opportunities to shape their own destiny.The process often involved competing visions on the part of the world's superpowers, mainly a difference between capitalist economics and Marxist ideology.
The end of the Cold War in the early 1990s seemed at first like a long-awaited opportunity to unite the world. We could have global free trade, frequent world travel, and international investment in developing countries.
The idea of world unity didn't reach its potential because of the way Vladimir Putin and a number of other world leaders focused on their own nationalistic aims.
They've believed that the surest path to power is to expand their influence over the world economy and the advancement of technology. They've become venture capitalists and acquired massive wealth. Still the ultimate goal is to safeguard the power of their dictatorial governments.
We have to acknowledge that the dangers of extreme nationalism go beyond Russia, China and the Middle East. In response to the emergence of terrorism threats since 2001, the United States has also moved in a direction of protecting our own interests.
Former President Trump even sought to distance America from the European Union. The "America First" concept attracted support from a sizable share of the public.
There's still a fear of political globalism, a concern that it could bring about trends toward socialism and world government. In the last few days, however, the Ukraine situation seems to be putting those fears into a different perspective.
We're seeing that it doesn't work to have many governments throughout the world that always pursue self interest, that base all policy decisions on how much they generate profits at home.
Instead there's something to be said for the 20th century United Nations type of idealism. Ukraine shows signs of reviving it, as nations everywhere voice support for Ukraine's right to remain free.
Putin appears to have under-estimated two important factors. One is the desire of Ukraine's people to remain independent. The other is the potential for a united international response.
Events unfolding this winter could have a far reaching influence, possibly as great as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the 911 terrorism of 2001. It might inspire a new approach to how nations interact. It could set new standards that help to promote freedom.
-- Jim Muchlinski is a longtime reporter and contributor to the Marshall Independent