The UN is failing
24/3/16 14:08![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
nairiporter.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThe best place to become witness of the gradual dismantling of the post-WW2 "world order" might well be the UN Security Council. If you are ever let in, of course - which is not going to happen. The sophisticated "public" sessions of that institution are mostly a smoke scren for the real dealings that as a rule happen behind closed doors.
In accordance with the current state of global affairs, the UNSC is having its hands full now more than ever. Years ago, it used to hold sessions for a couple of hours once or twice a week. Now those meetings occur every day, often well into the wee hours at night. Including at weekends. The overworked diplomats are busy discussing the endless list of crises and conflicts, from North Korea to Libya, and of course Daesh. The long list of sessions and committees may be testament for the Council's enthusiasm in analysing and tackling the many factors for modern conflict - but they also reflect the institutions total failure to avert crises of any
sort.
Then, there is the problem with semiotics. If there was a time when the UNSC resolutions used to be limited to a few short, concise and punctual formulations (like the very clear demand to Israel to withdraw from the ilegally occupied Palestinian territories), now those documents have become increasingly longer and less comprehensible. The governments who are at the receiving end of those resolutions often do not even understand the very essence of the document itself - let alone abide by its rulings.
Of course, there are many reasons for the UN's incapability to prevent or at least mitigate the devastating conflict in Syria. It is not enough to just throw the blame on one party, be it the US, Iran, Assad, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, the Kurds or whatever. The inconvenient truth here is that the primary world institution that is designed for dealing with military conflicts, is fundamentally flawed. The main problem is that the conditions for creating this institution existed in a world that was mostly designed to operate as a mosaic of nation-states. And this is no longer relevant in today's globalised world. Conflicts like those involving groups like Al Shabab, Boko Haram, the Islamic State, etc, may originate from specific local conditions, but they often have regional and even global scope and consequences, which transcend mere political borders.
In other words, the UNSC which was created to prevent and be an arbiter on inter-state conflicts, has failed to adapt to the realities of the new world that we live in now.
The UN's arrogant presumption that the governments make the decisions and everyone else obliges, has changed. The failure of the national governments and their multilateral institutions is indeed epic. What in 2001 used to look like occasional and geographically limited threats, has now turned into a perpetual war, instability, and extremist violence spanning almost all continents.
Unfortunately, most debates on UN reform are missing the main point. The discussion mostly revolves around the old questions about the acceptance of new UNSC permanent member states and placing limitations to the right to veto resolutions. Both are desirable reforms, but neither is likely to happen any time soon. And neither would it address the much deeper problem in any meaningful way. If the reform is done haphazardly, the risk is of a UN collapse, just like the League of Nations failed to prevent World War 2.
This year Ban Ki Moon's successor will be picked up, and the UN may be in urgent need of a firm and independent secretary general who would be able to give impartial and very specific recommendations to the UN Security Council, without fear of push-back or risk of bias in favour of the veto-wielding UNSC permanent members. And their topmost priority should be the protection of civilian life.
A good example of the way things are happening right now, is the case where the UN peace-keeping force chief failed to warn the UNSC of an impending genocide in Rwanda, because he was convinced that the members did not want to hear any of it. A truly independent secretary general would have arranged for a complete cease-fire in Syria a long time ago at this point, with clearly articulated consequences in case of non-compliance of any of the sides involved - including forceful sanctions. The same way, an international conference initiated by such an independent leader would have arranged the negotiation of a specific schedule for the two-state solution in Israel/Palestine - a requirement that the UNSC (and most UN member states) has long been urging for.
The secretary general would need autonomy in appointing a strong, experienced team, based on personal and professional qualities, not on the traditional bargaining of top positions between the big players - a practice that has de facto institutionalised their unhealthy dominance not just within the UNSC but on the UN Secretariat, and all the intel that is being served to the Council.
A number of UN officials have admitted that some UN reports are being edited by the permanent UNSC member states before being submitted officially. There are taboo questions like Chechnya or the South China Sea tensions, which somehow always remain outside the UNSC agenda, because it is "widely known" (but is never openly admitted) that certain member states would not tolerate such discussions. In recent years, the conflict in Kashmir was added to that list - a standoff between two nuclear powers that almost led the world to a nuclear war - but the very mentioning of that hot topic is tacitly frowned upon.
The UN investigations on the failure to prevent the mass killings in Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka point out certain inherent flaws - both political and institutional. But nothing is being done to amend that, due to the complete stalemate that reigns in the UN Security Council.
There might be one simple reform that could save the Council if the countries involved ever find the guts to do it. That institution could start actually hearing the people and countries that are directly affected by the conflicts the Council discusses. What I mean by this. When the Council discusses Syria, Libya or Somalia, it stands to reason that Syrians, Libyans and Somalis should at least be present and have a say. It is unforgivable, whatever the realities of those conflicts, that almost everything on the UNSC agenda constitutes conflicts between "non-state" groups, while the UNSC only allows nation-states to participate in the discussions, and thus shape the decision-making process. If ever. Often, when the affected countries are not UNSC members, they are not even granted that little opportunity. Sure, in some extremely rare cases the Council does grant audience to non-state groups, but only to those that it finds acceptable and friendly enough.
Now, these improvements do not require changes in the UN charter. The most ridiculous part is, they are already cited there! It is just that there has been way too much respect for decades-old, outdated, anachronistic traditions in the UN. A few determined and bold diplomats could actually make those changes happen. The world has been littered with all sorts of conflicts, in all forms and shapes imaginable. And the UN has to respond to that by adapting accordingly. Because the alternative would be rather unpleasant.
In accordance with the current state of global affairs, the UNSC is having its hands full now more than ever. Years ago, it used to hold sessions for a couple of hours once or twice a week. Now those meetings occur every day, often well into the wee hours at night. Including at weekends. The overworked diplomats are busy discussing the endless list of crises and conflicts, from North Korea to Libya, and of course Daesh. The long list of sessions and committees may be testament for the Council's enthusiasm in analysing and tackling the many factors for modern conflict - but they also reflect the institutions total failure to avert crises of any
sort.
Then, there is the problem with semiotics. If there was a time when the UNSC resolutions used to be limited to a few short, concise and punctual formulations (like the very clear demand to Israel to withdraw from the ilegally occupied Palestinian territories), now those documents have become increasingly longer and less comprehensible. The governments who are at the receiving end of those resolutions often do not even understand the very essence of the document itself - let alone abide by its rulings.
Of course, there are many reasons for the UN's incapability to prevent or at least mitigate the devastating conflict in Syria. It is not enough to just throw the blame on one party, be it the US, Iran, Assad, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Turkey, the Kurds or whatever. The inconvenient truth here is that the primary world institution that is designed for dealing with military conflicts, is fundamentally flawed. The main problem is that the conditions for creating this institution existed in a world that was mostly designed to operate as a mosaic of nation-states. And this is no longer relevant in today's globalised world. Conflicts like those involving groups like Al Shabab, Boko Haram, the Islamic State, etc, may originate from specific local conditions, but they often have regional and even global scope and consequences, which transcend mere political borders.
In other words, the UNSC which was created to prevent and be an arbiter on inter-state conflicts, has failed to adapt to the realities of the new world that we live in now.
The UN's arrogant presumption that the governments make the decisions and everyone else obliges, has changed. The failure of the national governments and their multilateral institutions is indeed epic. What in 2001 used to look like occasional and geographically limited threats, has now turned into a perpetual war, instability, and extremist violence spanning almost all continents.
Unfortunately, most debates on UN reform are missing the main point. The discussion mostly revolves around the old questions about the acceptance of new UNSC permanent member states and placing limitations to the right to veto resolutions. Both are desirable reforms, but neither is likely to happen any time soon. And neither would it address the much deeper problem in any meaningful way. If the reform is done haphazardly, the risk is of a UN collapse, just like the League of Nations failed to prevent World War 2.
This year Ban Ki Moon's successor will be picked up, and the UN may be in urgent need of a firm and independent secretary general who would be able to give impartial and very specific recommendations to the UN Security Council, without fear of push-back or risk of bias in favour of the veto-wielding UNSC permanent members. And their topmost priority should be the protection of civilian life.
A good example of the way things are happening right now, is the case where the UN peace-keeping force chief failed to warn the UNSC of an impending genocide in Rwanda, because he was convinced that the members did not want to hear any of it. A truly independent secretary general would have arranged for a complete cease-fire in Syria a long time ago at this point, with clearly articulated consequences in case of non-compliance of any of the sides involved - including forceful sanctions. The same way, an international conference initiated by such an independent leader would have arranged the negotiation of a specific schedule for the two-state solution in Israel/Palestine - a requirement that the UNSC (and most UN member states) has long been urging for.
The secretary general would need autonomy in appointing a strong, experienced team, based on personal and professional qualities, not on the traditional bargaining of top positions between the big players - a practice that has de facto institutionalised their unhealthy dominance not just within the UNSC but on the UN Secretariat, and all the intel that is being served to the Council.
A number of UN officials have admitted that some UN reports are being edited by the permanent UNSC member states before being submitted officially. There are taboo questions like Chechnya or the South China Sea tensions, which somehow always remain outside the UNSC agenda, because it is "widely known" (but is never openly admitted) that certain member states would not tolerate such discussions. In recent years, the conflict in Kashmir was added to that list - a standoff between two nuclear powers that almost led the world to a nuclear war - but the very mentioning of that hot topic is tacitly frowned upon.
The UN investigations on the failure to prevent the mass killings in Rwanda, Bosnia and Sri Lanka point out certain inherent flaws - both political and institutional. But nothing is being done to amend that, due to the complete stalemate that reigns in the UN Security Council.
There might be one simple reform that could save the Council if the countries involved ever find the guts to do it. That institution could start actually hearing the people and countries that are directly affected by the conflicts the Council discusses. What I mean by this. When the Council discusses Syria, Libya or Somalia, it stands to reason that Syrians, Libyans and Somalis should at least be present and have a say. It is unforgivable, whatever the realities of those conflicts, that almost everything on the UNSC agenda constitutes conflicts between "non-state" groups, while the UNSC only allows nation-states to participate in the discussions, and thus shape the decision-making process. If ever. Often, when the affected countries are not UNSC members, they are not even granted that little opportunity. Sure, in some extremely rare cases the Council does grant audience to non-state groups, but only to those that it finds acceptable and friendly enough.
Now, these improvements do not require changes in the UN charter. The most ridiculous part is, they are already cited there! It is just that there has been way too much respect for decades-old, outdated, anachronistic traditions in the UN. A few determined and bold diplomats could actually make those changes happen. The world has been littered with all sorts of conflicts, in all forms and shapes imaginable. And the UN has to respond to that by adapting accordingly. Because the alternative would be rather unpleasant.
(no subject)
Date: 24/3/16 13:53 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/3/16 06:50 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/3/16 19:43 (UTC)...Or not.
(no subject)
Date: 25/3/16 00:20 (UTC)