When the UN was founded, its primary goals, as stated in its charter’s preamble, included saving future generations from “the scourge of war” and reaffirming “faith in fundamental human rights.”
More than 70 years later, the world has more — and more advanced — weapons than ever, and armed conflicts are raging worldwide, resulting in large-scale death and suffering of combatants and civilians alike.
Among the most widely discussed conflicts is that in Syria, which according to UN sources, has left about 500,000 dead and injured, and displaced millions more. In Myanmar, the Rohingya have experienced what the UN itself has labeled ethnic cleansing. Yemen has become the site of a devastating proxy war. Conflicts also rage in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
For all of its supposed influence, the UN has proved ineffective in stopping the violence. Here, the UN secretary-general must shoulder significant responsibility. After all, the secretary-general is the ultimate symbol of the UN and in a sense, the moral compass of the international community.
The secretary-general’s mandate is delivered by the entire world, which is especially true of the incumbent, Antonio Guterres, who was selected through a revised process that included a more prominent role for the UN General Assembly — the “world congress.” He is thus duty-bound to lead the world toward a less violent, more humane future.
At the start of this year, Guterres issued a “red alert” for the world, declaring that: “We can settle conflicts, overcome hatred and defend shared values, but we can only do that together.”
This was a good first step, but to fulfill the responsibilities of his post he must do far more.
For starters, Guterres must use the bully pulpit of his office to the fullest extent, to invoke the moral rectitude and values of the organization.
He should also personally and actively support the efforts of the UN’s envoys both publicly and privately, by engaging at the highest level, to help find ways to defuse ongoing conflicts.
Finally, he must make clear to the UN Security Council, in no uncertain terms, that its inaction or complacency is inconsistent with the UN Charter and constitutes a crime of omission.
The UN Security Council has the primary responsibility within the UN of maintaining peace and security. It can engage in diplomacy to resolve conflicts and end hostilities, and it can opt for enforcement measures.
Yet the council has failed to perform this role to the fullest possible extent, largely because its five permanent members (P5) — China, France, Russia, the UK and the US — have so often acted on the basis of their own interests, using or threatening to use their veto power.
The veto power was intended as a means to facilitate cooperation, thereby enabling the P5 to fulfill their responsibility to help maintain global peace and security.
The one limit on the permanent members’ veto power — the requirement that a party to a dispute must abstain from voting — underscores the importance of maintaining some semblance of neutrality when making decisions in the UN Security Council.
Yet, for the P5, neither violations of international law nor large-scale human suffering trump realpolitik or “geopolitical considerations.” They even pursue policies that directly undermine the UN, its charter and the rules-based world order more broadly.
The P5’s failure to end conflicts — and in some cases, its members’ contribution to aggravating or prolonging hostilities — amounts, at the very least, to condoning violence and suffering, which disproportionately affects small and medium-size countries.
More fundamentally, it has undermined faith in the UN and international law, and increased the world’s tolerance of inhumanity.
The US and Russia bear particular responsibility for the P5’s failures. Instead of using their influence and military capacities to check and defuse conflicts — working of course with regional actors — they have been resuming a strategic competition that, as history shows, is likely to lead only to more disorder and misery.
None of this absolves the other three P5 members of their responsibility to fight for the UN Security Council to fulfill its role in supporting international peace and security. At the very least, they must step up and act as catalysts for collective action by the council.
All P5 members must fulfill their responsibility not just to uphold the world order that they played central roles in developing, but also to renew faith in that order, including by pursuing needed reforms. That means showing the rest of the world that they will wield their veto power responsibly, by placing a higher priority on common values.
Here, a simple rule to follow would be to refrain from vetoing a resolution that a majority of council members support, unless at least two of the P5 oppose it.
While this will not eliminate the problem completely, it should make the UN Security Council more effective, by encouraging more effective discussions in which all council members, not just the powerful P5, are heard.
International actors must respect individual countries’ sovereignty, but in the face of conflicts that are producing widespread death and destruction, the UN and its power players have a responsibility to do everything possible to restore peace. They have exercised power without responsibility for too long.
Nabil Fahmy, a former Egyptian foreign minister and ambassador to the US and Japan, is the dean of the School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, and a professor at the American University in Cairo.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A Chinese diplomat’s violent threat against Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi following her remarks on defending Taiwan marks a dangerous escalation in East Asian tensions, revealing Beijing’s growing intolerance for dissent and the fragility of regional diplomacy. Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday posted a chilling message on X: “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off,” in reference to Takaichi’s remark to Japanese lawmakers that an attack on Taiwan could threaten Japan’s survival. The post, which was later deleted, was not an isolated outburst. Xue has also amplified other incendiary messages, including one suggesting
Chinese Consul General in Osaka Xue Jian (薛劍) on Saturday last week shared a news article on social media about Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan, adding that “the dirty neck that sticks itself in must be cut off.” The previous day in the Japanese House of Representatives, Takaichi said that a Chinese attack on Taiwan could constitute “a situation threatening Japan’s survival,” a reference to a legal legal term introduced in 2015 that allows the prime minister to deploy the Japan Self-Defense Forces. The violent nature of Xue’s comments is notable in that it came from a diplomat,
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
RSS