But of course the UN Security Council is not interested in ending these threats to humanity. It is not interested in a peace which means that humanity is free from the clutches of the governments that seek to track, trace, control and sanction their every movement.
Kumbaya and pass the bubbly! World peace has been achieved!
What, haven't you heard? The UN Security Council just passed a resolution that calls for a global ceasefire as a type of "humanitarian pause" while the world deals with the global coronavirus pandemic that we are told is wreaking such havoc on the human population.
Or, as the UN puts it:
The Security Council on Wednesday echoed the Secretary-General’s call for a worldwide ceasefire, to combat the coronavirus pandemic that has already claimed more than half a million lives. The UN chief welcomed the long-awaited move, calling for countries to "redouble their efforts for peace".
This tells us three things:
1) Our noble leaders love us and care for us and want to protect us during this time of crisis.
2) The pandemic must be real and it must be supremely grave, because why else would the Security Council be acting like this?
3) We can expect the next 90 days to be a heaven on earth where the nations of the world lay down their arms and live in peace and harmony.
Well, not exactly. You see, the resolution asks member nations to cease all of their military operations except "military operations against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh), Al-Qaida and Al-Nusra Front, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Al-Qaida or ISIL, and other Council-designated terrorist groups." But other than that wee little asterisk, that's it. War is done-zo. For three months, anyway.
So, wait, why are the Saudis just launch a fresh military campaign against the Yemenis? Didn't they get the memo? What on earth is going on here?
Well let's start by examining the idea of a 90-day ceasefire (except against the really bad guys). Is this supposed to signal to the rest of the world that bombing and violence and bloodshed is OK as long as it doesn't distract people from panicking about the Official Bogeyman du Jour (i.e., coronavirus)? If, 90 days from now, the coronavirus is no longer being promoted as an existential threat to humanity, then will war and widescale slaughter become "humanitarian" again?
Of course such a pronouncement doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny. Sure, it's a nice sentiment that everyone can get behind ("Yes, we should stop war for an arbitrarily defined period of time!") but that's precisely the point; it's a PR move that is designed to swirl the Security Council and "humanitarian pause" and "world peace" around in our head so that we all end up with warm, fuzzy feelings about the UN and come to believe that there is some sort of global governmental body that can stop war at the snap of its fingers.
(Did I mention the Saudis just carried out an airstrike against a Yemeni village?)
As usual, there is a modicum of truth to the sentiment; without our misleaders constantly conspiring to whip up public anger against perceived enemies and purchasing billions of dollars of military equipment, it's highly doubtful that there would be very much large-scale international warfare at all. Do you really think the average Saudi would be motivated to help fund and equip an Air Force, and then volunteer to jump in a fighter jet and conduct bombing raids on Yemeni villages all on their own? Without a government (or, in this case, a spoiled crown prince) deciding that it in "the Kingdom's" interests to carry out such strikes (and then spending ungodly amounts of that self-same Kingdom's money to make it happen), would such warfare be taking place at all?
So, yes, if the world leaders truly wanted to bring about world peace, one could imagine that it would be possible. But instead we get Security Council publicity stunts, passing resolutions calling for "humanitarian pauses" in our regularly scheduled warfare . . . that will naturally resume in 90 days (or less). One presumes this cessation of hostilities also applies to any Palestinians thinking of defending their homeland from impending Israeli annexation.
No, this latest resolution means nothing of importance for those seeking actual world peace. What it does do is confirm yet again that—exactly as I have had cause to point out time and again since this coronavirus crisis started—the REAL threat to world peace is the war that these same misleaders are waging against their own populations.
The signs of this warfare are everywhere apparent.
It can be seen in the European Commission's "roadmap" for implementing a common vaccination card / passport for all EU citizens by 2022.
It can be seen in the UN's own "Verified" initiative, which threatens to "counter the spread of COVID-19 misinformation by sharing fact-based advice with their communities." (And I think we all know what that means.)
It can be seen in the deliberate targeting of the elderly in care homes to artificially inflate the death rates during this crisis.
It can be seen in the mandatory vaccinations, lockdowns, closures, and all of the other laws, rules and regulations that are seeking to restrict the basic rights and freedoms in the age of biosecurity.
In each and every case, these are threats to peace and stability (not to mention the economic livelihood) to the majority of humanity, threats that are being perpetrated by the (mis)leaders themselves on the very people they claim to be ruling over.
But of course the UN Security Council is not interested in ending (or even "humanitarian pausing") these threats to humanity. It is not interested in a peace which means that humanity is free from the clutches of the governments that seek to track, trace, control and sanction their every movement. That is the vision of world peace that is never presented in these cheap publicity stunts at the UN.