The U.N. General Assembly starts its 69th session in New York City later this month. Let us peek under the blue canopy to separate the wheat from the shaff. Mostly shaff.
The die was cast in San Francisco in June 1945. The course, character, function, role and mission of the U.N. were all irrevocably decided forever. The U.N. Charter gave birth to a World War II organization which was basically a clone of the League of Nations, except in few cosmetics. An inter-State system which falsely described its existence in a contradictory fashion for public consumption -a feel good heading!! The Charter begins with the words "We the people," but the "Nations" were only united in one respect: to prevent any surrender of substantive sovereignty.
The U.N. bestowed equality of sovereignty on its now 193 States. Great!! But in effect it saddled itself by two systems: equality in the General Assembly (the Parliament of Man/Woman); and a Security Council where the five "great powers" were respectively armed by an extinguisher of that equality -a veto power. In effect, we have under the charter a house of commons (the General Assembly) and a house of 5 lords (the powers possessing a veto), plus 10 non-permanent States as extras. This is the first split personality in the U.N.
If I say the "first split," I must produce "a second" without inventing it. The second split is Article 2, para. 7 which, in part, states: "Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within domestic jurisdiction of any State..." So the State, at the U.N., is not only "sovereign;" it is also omnipotent because it can put a "domestic jurisdiction" label on any matter it could assert and defend as an internal matter.
In consequence, the hallowed "right of peoples to self-determination" is established only with regard to the inhabitants of an established State. It does not exist in regard to groups seeking to secede from States, or to the right to reunification in divided States. It is even more remote as to the exercise of minorities of their right to preserve their own separate identities, except what the State would authorize. As a matter of fact, there is no consensus on defining the word "people."
This uncertainty seeps also under the foundation of "the right of peoples to self-determination." Why?! Because it conflicts with the better established principle of sovereignty. This in part explains why States value their U.N. membership: it freezes the lines of their national boundaries at the time of joining the U.N. club.
But wait a minute!! The U.N. Security Council, in spite of the existence of the veto, has been able to play some role in deterring aggression. Yes, but only when the U.S., the U.K., France, China and Russia are together in accord, or when one or more of them decide to abstain or be absent.
This explains why Al-Assad has so far survived the hurricane of the Syrian civil war (the Russian veto either cast or threatened), and why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu could flout international law as he grabs more Palestinian land (the U.S. veto is the real iron dome for the State of Israel). Building settlement on occupied lands is anathema to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and is totally not covered by the right of Israel to defend itself.
Of course, the Security Council can impose sanctions, either military or economic. But what the popular eye misses in this comforting scenario is that the Council does not possess what the charter had anticipated. It says, in Article 42 that the Council may use "armed force" by "air, sea or land forces." However, due to the cold war which followed on the heels of the victories of World War II, it is the State that can produce and can volunteer such armed forces. The Council has none of its own. In fact, the term "peace keeping" does not exist in the U.N. Charter. The term is the product of a transitory chance: The Suez War of 1956 which brought the U.S. and U.S.S.R together on the same page during the Eisenhower and the Khrushchev administration -a rare moment of common purpose.
In consequence, these national military contingents, which may be volunteered only by the will of the State, and also withdrawn by the will of the same State, have no ascertainable command and control at the U.N. Headquarters. The U.N. Secretary General is not a commander-in-chief; he or she is only the bursar who funds these operations as per decisions of the Security Council and the General Assembly.
When we teach the laws of the U.N. Charter, we, as professors of law, tend to make a great deal of the presumed importance of the difference in powers between the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, and his successor at the U.N.
We point to Article 99 of the Charter which enables Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, for example, to "bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security." The League's Secretary-General did not enjoy that capacity. He was primarily a mere clerk. But what can Mr. Ban do with this power in a Security Council whose decisions have to traverse the obstacle course of the non-exercise of the veto? At most, a resolution which reflects the diminished will of a toothless U.N.
In practice, the power granted to the Secretary-General under Article 99 has largely manifested itself in two procedures: formation of "Friends of the Secretary-General" from 4 to 5 Security Council Members. The other are statements by the Secretary-General of either support or condemnation of a global event -mere soap bubbles in the wind!! Ceremonizing!!
Some would say: But the General Assembly could also adopt resolutions on war and peace!! True. But those resolutions are only a wish list, mere recommendations, implementable only by the will of the sovereign leviathan called, the Member State.
So far, I have painted a bleak picture. I am right and wrong at the same time. I am right when I state that the U.N., as an inter-state system, is unsuitable for effective action in civil wars. Civil wars are domestic jurisdiction catastrophes, such as in Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq, the Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Somalia. . In such situations, any U.N. resolution is only carried out by the State.
Now let us look at where I am wrong in not delving in the exceptions. The most important exceptions are: When human rights are so vastly violated to the point of shocking the conscience of mankind. This is when States may intervene under the newly-minted doctrine of "international human intervention."
Also when the Security Council and/or the Assembly might call on regional organizations, such as the European Union or the African Union or the League of Arab States to act on behalf of the U.N. under Chapter 8. Also when the U.N. call goes out to capable individual members hidden within the vague term of "the international community" to come to the rescue. Also when a U.N. resolution emboldens domestic opposition to rise up and throw off the yoke of the local dictator. Also when a group of States get together, in their exercise of converging self-interest, to take collective action. In all these situations, you see in the U.N. only a flag, but no direct executive action.
We also have on the bright side of the U.N. value, the vast developmental and humanitarian assistance carried out by what is called "the Family of the U.N. Organization" -30 specialized agencies (e.g. World health, civil aviation, refugees, food).
This is not to mention the 2000 non-governmental organizations which truly represent "We the People" in the U.N. Charter. But their input, even when invited, is hardly translated into direct U.N. action. In any case, such NGO input is safely channeled, not through the Security Council, but through the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). ECOSOC is hardly mentioned in media headlines. This is although it carries out the greatest bulk of global action relative to enhancing the quality of life for billions of human beings in the so-called "developing countries."
In spite of all of these bright spots in the global performance of the U.N., I am looking through the window of civil wars and ISIS animal kingdoms!! What I could see are pillars of dark smoke, with the fire department, called the U.N., with no engines to rush to these fires.
Could we repair these engines? How?! The Charter cannot be amended -except, except, except, by a new beginning to be called: "The World Under United Peoples!!" Sweet dreams!! Wake up, Pal!! You are now in the world of the non-State actor. Also known as "The Twilight Zone!!"
No comments:
Post a Comment