Iran, Syria, Turkey, and whatever happened to the United Nations?

Almost one full month ago, on September 24th, President Donald Trump addressed the 74th Session of the United Nations. He gave a bold speech and one of the more memorable lines that he proclaimed to the body of world leaders was: "the future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots, the future belongs to sovereign and independent nations." He went on to explain: "The truth is plain to see, if you want freedom, take pride in your country... and if you want peace, love your nation." Just in a few words, Trump warned the globalists and summed up the true mission of the United Nations, but it is not likely the delegates, nor the globalists in attendance welcomed his prognosis for a better world.

Iran and the Yemeni Houthis

Ironically, just ten days prior to his remarks at the U.N., the government of Iran launched a missile attack against Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. It proved devastating. In the evening of September 14, 2019, several attacks blasted two strategic infrastructure sites, including one of the world’s largest refineries. Although Yemeni Houthis Houthi Ansarallah claimed responsibility, the details of “their attack’ did not synchronize with reality. The U.S. determined that Iran was the source, and that their government had launched the attacks via known staging areas from across the Persian Gulf. The U.S. responded by increasing U.S. military personnel in their nation. However within this short time span, President Trump withdrew most of the remaining U.S. troops from Syria, eventually to see the Russian government move in to “fill the void,” and to see Turkish troops sweep in and strike at the Kurds in the region. Almost immediately, the president faced criticism from many in the GOP, as well as some Democrats campaigning for POTUS, and some American allies. Many critics did not know or chose to ignore the reality that before the president directed the U.S. military to “begin a deliberate withdrawal of forces from northern Syria,” the limited number of our military in the region were purposely fired upon by the military of Turkey, which is supposedly still our ally under N.A.T.O. U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper also admitted that the United States knew ahead of time about Turkish President Erdogan’s determination to send troops into Syria. Defense Secretary Esper revealed, in that tense period, that the United States knew ahead of time about President Erdogan’s intent to send Turkish troops into Syria. “It was clear to me that President Erdogan was committed to coming in. He informed us that he was coming in. He didn’t ask permission.” Esper stated on CBS’ “Face the Nation” at the time that the U.S. moved about 1,000 U.S. troops from northern Syria because it was not enough troops to stop the Turk’s attack, and the troops needed to be removed from harm’s way. “There is no way they could stop 15,000 Turks from proceeding south.” The withdrawal was viewed as opening the way for Turkey to go ahead and attack the U.S.-backed Kurdish forces, part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The Kurdish military had been America’s most capable partners in fighting against the Islamic State.

---

Turkey’s forray into Syria raised serious alarm bells around the world

Although U.S. officials had increased pressure on Turkey in order to halt the assault on the Kurdish fighters and on Syria, eventually Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were dispatched to Turkey in order to negotiate a cease-fire agreement. That effort was also criticized by many in the GOP, as well as Democrats campaigning for POTUS, and some American allies. It seems there are many who would like to be “king for a day” and set the world right, and all of those armchair commanders voiced their respective views of how to run things from the White House. Yet, instead of creating a peaceful outcome, Trump’s move has sent a signal to the other nations in the region. Yet it could not be viewed as a definitive signal. Certainly, Turkey’s forray into Syria raised serious alarm bells around the world. Multiple concerns have been raised -- some about the collateral impact on civilians, and some about possibilities of Islamic State militants escaping from Kurdish custody. Actually, before the ceasefire was arranged, the Kurdish-led administration in northern Syria revealed that 785 foreigners connected to the Islamic State escaped a detainee camp following some Turkish shelling. Additionally, on the minds of many are serious concerns over Iran’s military buildup. Such is the Middle East in the moment; yet, it is a region that seems to perpetually be in a politically agitated state. Several inescapable observations can be made from such a violent realm of the world. First, the president has always voiced his desire to protect our troops overseas, and in the case of Syria, a wise withdrawal may have been the most prudent option for President Trump. Secondly, on the eve of an election year, several politicians seemingly want to politicize the issue of international security. Third, is President Trump the only one who is serious about world peace? Fourth, it is truly sad, but the task of maintaining international security was once the intended purpose of the United Nations. Where in the world is the U.N. amidst all of the turmoil going on in the war-torn Middle East? Fifth, and it must be asked: on the eve of the anniversary of the creation of the U.N. is this global body still relevant in light of its original purpose?

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Tragically, the recent sweep of violence within Syria and throughout the region is not a situation that the U.N. is able to handle

On the eve of the anniversary of United Nations Day, intelligent people may truly question the value or relevance of the U.N. as a “peacekeeping” organization. Unfortunately, since signing of the U.N. charter on October 24th, 1945, the Security Council, the brain of this global organization, has only fulfilled its intended purpose three times as outlined under its charter. Since its inception in 1945, the Security Council has only used its legal authority to use armed force to mitigate or eliminate serious threats in order to “maintain or restore international peace and security,” On June 27, 1950, the Council condemned the North Korean invasion of South Korea, and passed Resolution 82 that requested troops from member nations to assist the Republic of Korea in their defense of freedom. Again in 1991, the Security Council voted to use coalition forces to solve the problem of Iraq invading Kuwait. The Council also used coalition forces in Libya in 2011. Specifically, Chapter VII of the U.N. charter provides stronger power of authority for the Security Council via its mandate to identify threats to world peace, decide what measures to take in those situations when “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression” occur in the world, and then upon mutual agreement, take dedicated steps to implement such measures as an action plan to mitigate or solve the problems, even by use of armed force “to maintain or restore international peace and security.” When the human brain does not function properly, the body cannot function properly, and this has been the problem at the core of the U.N. from day one. The degree of degradation of the original vision became evident when the former Soviet Union was accepted and trusted as a member nation in the U.N. It was similar to trusting the proverbial wolf to protect the hen house. Having a permanent seat on the Security Council enabled “Uncle Joe” Stalin to do whatever he wanted in his quest for world domination through the embodiment of the goals of International Communism. But, the failures of the Security Council are much more apparent in the turbulent Middle East than in any other place in the world. Tragically, the recent sweep of violence within Syria and throughout the region is not a situation that the U.N. is able to handle. it is obvious that the noble dream of Roosevelt and Churchill is not sincerely shared today by the leaders and representatives that occupy the meeting rooms of the U.N.

---

The original intent of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill for the UN was to create an international organization that could promote and maintain peace, but would also promote freedom for humankind throughout the world. Ironically, in President Trump’s last two appearances at the U.N., his speeches seemed more in alignment with the original vision of Roosevelt and Churchill. Trump delivered an impassioned call to the delegates at the 73rd Session of the U.N. He affirmed: “We believe that when nations respect the rights of their neighbors, and defend the interests of their people, they can better work together to secure the blessings of safety, prosperity, and peace.” President Trump has consistently stressed each nation’s ability to defend their sovereignty. He has consistently rejected oppressive ideologies, oppressive regimes, and control from the globalists. Yet, Trump also reaffirmed America’s commitment to world peace, security, and prosperity. He was quite bold in expressing that:

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination… I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

Unfortunately, it is not totally clear if there are enough who care about the original vision and purpose of the U.N. -- if they would care enough to attempt to restore it — or even believe that the U.N. could be reformed. In truth, the old Soviet Union’s example of deceit and manipulation has spread like a cancer among many of the member nations, and the vision has been totally tainted. It is time to clean house, but the hen house has been transformed into a den of wolves. In 2019, many Americans no longer see the return on continued investment in the U.N. As a businessman, it is likely that it does not escape Trump’s observation.