Bring back the League of Nations

Its successor the UN is taking over world governance

- IAN FANTOM

THEY said the League of Nations had failed, but had it? It provided a forum in which governments could negotiate peace rather than pursue their interests by means of warfare.

But that's all any organisation can do. If a powerful government is determined to start a war then no forum can stop it.

The idea of the League of Nations came from the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War. But the U.S. Senate refused to ratify that treaty. They then boycotted the League of Nations.

The United Nations was set up on U.S. soil, on land provided by the Rockefellers. When Kofi Annan retired as UN Secretary General he was proud of the fact that he had introduced privatepublic partnerships into the UN.

Given that some of those private corporations are more powerful than governments, this is now looking like a coup. The idea that the League of Nations had failed is now looking like an excuse to replace it with an organisation that would be more easily brought under the control of the mainly U.S. corporations.

The World Health Organisation is an Agency of the UN. It should therefore be bound by the UN's Charter, according to which the UN will not interfere in the internal affairs of member states. Yet since 2017 the WHO has been undergoing a 'transformation'.

'Our goal is clear,' wrote its Director-General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, 'a modern WHO, working seamlessly to make a measurable difference in people's health at country level.' At country level? Does that not impinge on the sovereignty of member states? Much of the text is marketing twaddle. The WHO is a massive organisation, with an income in 2021 of $4bn.