Breaking news: Nelson Mandela Dead

After years of illness, Nelson Mandela has passed away in his family home surrounded by family.

President Jacob Zuma has said in a press conference:"Our nation has lost its great son"

The world has lost a great man.

Read further on BBC: South Africa's Nelson Mandela Dies | BBC News

Mandela was a great leader of not just the black population in South Africa, but also other oppressed peoples around the world. His ability to keep faith and dignity in the face of extreme torment and repression was the strength that he upheld for many decades and will be honoured for centuries to come. The ability to look beyond hatred and revenge for decades of suffering of his fellow people under Apartheid, showed what a inspirational leader and person that Mandela was. Hopefully his legacy will keep inspiring people to stand up for their own freedoms and justice, through peace and love, rather then war and violence. Good bye and Rest in Peace Nelson Mandela.

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Aung San Suu Kyi's address at the Sydney Opera House

On Wednesday this week, Sydney was previledged to have Daw Aung San Suu Kyi address an enthusiastic crowd at the Opera House.

View a replay of this great event here:

How and Why the United Nations needs to be Reformed

Over the last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the UNSC is in need of reform.

For many decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.

Perhaps one area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing  their power and influence over the last 60 years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance, Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of the current state of world affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

Mugabe’s planned "indigenization" will not help Zimbabwe

It has been a few weeks since the disputed elections in Zimbabwe, where the long standing President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory over his main rival Morgan Tsvangirai in the nation's presidential election. On top of retaining power, Mugabe’s party Zanu-PF won two thirds of the seats in the parliament, giving him and his party majority rule and the legal right to change the constitution. Although, Mr Tsvangirai’s opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have taken the election  result to the constitutional court, as they argue of widespread election fraud.

As the decision to make the election result legitimate or demand are re-election still in the hands of the court, President Magabe has come out earlier this and stated that he will carry on with the plan to make all companies in the country be under the control of the black Zimbabweans. As with the taking over of white farms and given to the black population, the economic control over many foreign or local companies was a major campaign issue supported by many rural Zimbabweans, where much of Magabe’s support comes from.

This policy of "indigenization" I think will have major effects of the stability in Zimbabwe, both economically and socially. Forced eviction of white farmers and companies owned by the white population will further cripple the economy. Also as many companies, especially in the mining industry are owned by foreign firms, this policy of making them be under the control of black Zimbabweans could drive existing and future investment away from the country, as investors may be frightened because of an ant-white agenda impacting their business interests, which would not help improve the poor economy or the standard of living of the people in the long run. In stead of committing the same offences as the former British rulers, and then the white rule under Cecil Rhodes, where land was taken from the black indigenous population and given to the colonizers, the government should work with the white owned companies and farms to improve economic stability and assist in empowering the black population through education, rather then racial alienation.