#UN Archives - West vs The Rest

Introduction: The doctrine of “peace through power” has been a cornerstone of statecraft since the Roman Empire. But under Donald Trump, this historical concept has been reshaped into a tool for aggressive, unilateral action. This analysis argues that Trump’s version of the doctrine has not guaranteed peace but has instead fueled instability, humanitarian crises, and the erosion of international institutions, effectively becoming a doctrine of “peace through war.”

Roman Legionary - World History Encyclopedia — Note: The Roman legionary was a well-trained and disciplined foot soldier, fighting as part of a professional well-organized unit, the legion (Latin: legio), established by the Marian Reforms. While major tactical changes appeared during the final days of the Roman Republic and the early days of the Roman Empire, Roman armor and weapons, albeit with minor adaptations, remained simple.

From Hadrian’s Wall to the Cold War
The roots of “peace through power” run deep. The Roman Emperor Hadrian operationalized it by building his famous wall—a symbol of military strength meant to deter attacks and secure the empire’s borders. In modern times, U.S. leaders like Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan adopted this logic. Reagan, in particular, brought it to a crescendo during the Cold War, using massive defense budgets and arms superiority as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. The goal was to prevent war through undeniable strength.

President Trump will kick off Army's 250th birthday celebrations Tuesday at Fort Bragg - ABC7 Los Angeles — **Trump kicks off Army’s 250th birthday celebrations at Fort Bragg, says he’ll restore base names**

The Trump Transformation: From Deterrence to Aggression
Donald Trump has co-opted the phrase “peace through power,” but his application marks a significant shift. His policies have moved beyond deterrence towards what can be called “peace through aggressive military power.” This approach relies on:

Maximum Pressure: Severe economic sanctions and embargoes.
Military Threats: Overt and covert threats against adversaries.
Unilateral Action: Drone strikes and assassinations of key figures, such as Qasem Soleimani.

As Trump himself implied in a speech to the Israeli Knesset, his administration believed that military action (or its threat) was a necessary tool to force outcomes, like a peace agreement. This represents a fundamental change: military power is no longer just a shield for defense, but a sword to impose will.

The Destructive Age of Urban Warfare; or, How to Kill a City and How to Protect It — Note: Combat in urban areas is the most destructive type of warfare imaginable. Densely populated terrain, complex systems of systems that support human life, military weapons not optimized to these conditions, and asymmetric close-quarters battle tactics all make warfare in cities unforgiving for combatants, noncombatants, and cities alike. The unintentional—and at times intentional—destruction of the physical terrain, populations, and infrastructure of cities during combat leave effects that can be felt for generations.

The Cost of Militarism: Five Critical Failures
The real-world consequences of this aggressive doctrine reveal its profound flaws:

It Fuels Instability, Not Security: Rather than preventing conflict, relentless threats and militarism spark arms races and regional tensions, creating a more volatile world.
It Diverts Vital Resources: The trillions spent on expanding an already massive military budget are funds stripped from domestic needs like healthcare, education, and infrastructure, weakening the social fabric at home.
It Erodes American Credibility: Unilateralism and constant threats have alienated traditional allies, weakened multilateral institutions like the UN, and driven some nations closer to America’s competitors.
It Creates Humanitarian Crises: Airstrikes in Yemen, assassinations, and sanctions have resulted in thousands of civilian casualties, painting America as a nation that disregards international law and human rights.
It Embraces Divisive Nationalism: The doctrine is often paired with a rhetoric of extreme nationalism, which deepens social divisions at home and exacerbates cultural and racial tensions abroad.

Note: A handshake between nations is a powerful symbol of peace and a commitment to cooperation, with its roots in showing peaceful intentions by demonstrating one is unarmed. While a handshake alone doesn’t guarantee peace, it is a crucial first step in a diplomatic process that can solidify agreements, build trust, and signify the end of conflict. It represents a mutual understanding and a desire for unity and collaboration.

Conclusion: The Need for a New Path
The “doctrine of peace through power” has been implemented under Trump in a way that guarantees the very opposite of peace. By choosing coercion over diplomacy and unilateral force over multilateral cooperation, this approach has damaged global stability and America’s moral standing. The world does not need more militarism. A secure and prosperous future must be built on the foundations of diplomacy, respect for international law, and genuine cooperation. The alternative—a path of endless conflict—is no path to peace at all.

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

— George F. Will

How the UN, founded on the ashes of world war, became a tool for hegemony—and why the world must replace it.

The Paralysis in New York

While bombs rain on Gaza and tanks roll through Ukraine, the United Nations Security Council meets. Speeches are made. Resolutions are proposed. And then—a single hand rises. The veto. Everything stops.

Image 1: The veto power is not a check on international conflict. It’s a monopoly on global consequence—a velvet noose wielded by five states who long ago decided that international law is a buffet: take what you want, starve the rest.

This theater of the absurd repeats itself endlessly, revealing a brutal truth: The UN is dead. It is not just ineffective; it is an active obstacle to justice, a shield for the powerful, and a monument to a world order that no longer exist

**Image 2: The UN Security Council is paralyzed by the major powers, and the General Assembly, has no binding power. At a time when conflicts are multiplying around the world.**

1. The Noble Lie: The Post-WWII Promise

Image 3: The UN built upon American President Woodrow Wilson’s idea for a League of Nations created after World War I. Based on an American idea and promoted by Roosevelt through conferences held between the Allied powers throughout World War II, the United States signed on to the UN Charter as one of its most influential members. The United States became one of five permanent members of the UN Security Council, and the United States continues to be one the largest financial contributors to the United Nations.

The UN was born in 1945 from a simple, noble idea: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” The victors of WWII—the U.S., USSR, UK, France, and China—anointed themselves as the permanent guardians of this peace through the Security Council’s veto power.
The idea was stability. The result was legalized imperialism.
The veto was never about fairness; it was a mechanism to ensure the new world order would always serve the interests of its architects.

2. The Tool of Hegemony: How the West Weaponized the UN

**Image 4: The UN itself is devoted to the wishes of the nations that started it and the nations that run it, and as such has been used time and time again as a mere tool for Europe, the US, and China**

For decades, the UN has served not as a neutral referee, but as an extension of U.S. and Western foreign policy.
– Selective Enforcement: Resolutions against enemies (Iraq, Syria, Russia) are enforced with sanctions and bombs. Resolutions against allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) are vetoed or ignored.
– The Gaza Veto: The U.S. has vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions in Gaza, providing diplomatic cover for a genocide the ICJ has deemed “plausible.”
– The Theft of Legitimacy: By monopolizing the language of “international law” and “rules-based order,” the West uses the UN’s platform to condemn its enemies while insulating itself from accountability.
The message is clear: The “rules-based order” only has rules for those who don’t make them.

3. The Rise of the Rest: Why the Global South Has Given Up

Image 5: A globally integrated financial and trade system, heavily influenced by powerful institutions like the IMF and World Bank, has consistently failed to support autonomous development in the Global South due to debt traps, unequal trade rules, and imposed neoliberal policies that benefit the Global North.

The BRICS expansion is not just an economic bloc. It is a political revolt against a system that has consistently failed the developing world.
– Non-Alignment 2.0: Countries are no longer begging for a seat at the table; they are building a new one. They are trading in local currencies, forming their own security alliances, and ignoring Western sanctions.
– The Credibility Crash: When the UN watches on as hospitals are bombed and children starve—and can do nothing—it doesn’t just look weak. It looks complicit.
As the professor stated, the UN now operates in a “parallel world,” issuing reports that change nothing for the Ukrainian soldier or the Gazan child.

4. The Path Forward: What Must Replace the UN?

Image 6: We have to admit that it doesn’t work, that the system imagined in 1945, without the colonized countries, without the losers of the war, and by protecting the most powerful with the right of veto, has only led to a new and dangerous impasse.

The problem is not the idea of international cooperation. The problem is the corrupt, outdated structure of the current body. Any new organization must learn from the UN’s failures.
1. No Permanent Veto Power: A rotating leadership model based on regional representation, not 80-year-old wartime alliances.
2. Geographical Decentralization: Headquarters must be distributed across continents (e.g., Asia, Africa, South America) to prevent cultural and political capture by a single host nation.
3. Focus on Development, Not Intervention: Shift from mandating wars to facilitating trade, climate justice, and infrastructure development for the Global South.
4. A Army of the Global South: A peacekeeping force answerable to the general assembly, not the security council of a few powers.
This isn’t a fantasy. It is the necessary institutional foundation for a truly multipolar world.

Conclusion: The Funeral and the Foundation

**Image 7: The United Nations is a corpse. We are just waiting for the world to stop pretending it’s alive.**

The United Nations is a corpse. We are just waiting for the world to stop pretending it’s alive.
Its failure is a tragedy, but also an opportunity: to build a new institution that reflects the world of today, not the world of 1945. An institution that serves all of humanity, not just its most powerful members.
The first step is to stop hoping for the UN to reform. The second is to start building what comes next.

Tag: #UN

Peace Through Power or Peace Through War? The Militarization of Trump’s Doctrine

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

A Obsolete Guardian: The Death of the United Nations and the Birth of a New Global Order

“Nationalism is blamed for this century’s wars, but nationalism need not mean militarism. And the nation-state has been the laboratory of liberty.”

About West vs The Rest