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. 

Will peace finally come through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Finally, after almost three years of stalemate over resuming talks over the peace process in the Middle East,both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have decided that over the next nine months both sides will aim for a “final status” agreement (a final plan to bring peace).

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has been mediating with both sides over the last few months, said "the two sides have agreed that all the final status issues, core issues, are all on the table for negotiation.” The thorniest of these are overcoming the status of Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want the Eastern part of the city to become their new Capital under a two state solution, but Israel have long argued that they are unwilling to divide the city. Also, the problem of drawing up a border to accommodate a Palestinian state, and the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are major concerns for the negotiations. .As there are many core issues that will make the next nine months difficult for both sides to agree to a negotiated peace, but after decades of violence and mistrust, a final solution needs to be found.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read and understood, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and if both Hamas and Fatah can agree to unite, the Gaza strip as well. Only two separate states will bring peace to the region, as history has shown there is too much animosity between both sides for them to co-exist in the same country.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, Israel will need to agree to a divided city, where by any new Palestinian state would have East Jerusalem as its capital and the rest staying a part of Israel. The Palestinians would probably not agree to any peace plan that does not involve their new capital been East Jerusalem, as two holy Islamic buildings, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque are located there.  

Another major problem will be the drawing up of a border of a new Palestinian state, and incorporated in this is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think to overcome this issue, two situation will need to happen, firstly, Israel will have to halt all new construction of settlements, and secondly, for both sides to agree to land swaps. This could be difficult for Israel, as many right-wing coalition members in the government and settlers are unwilling to budge from their stance on not leaving the settlements, but for any peace deal to aspire this will have to happen.

I hope for future peace and stability in the region that these negotiations will not end like the Oslo Accords, where instead of agreement, there was mistrust on both sides, leading to a failed deal and more violence. This time the issues need to be resolved, because if not, the problems faced by both Israeli’s and Palestinians will become even deeper.

For short summary of some of the core issues of the conflict mentioned in this post visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11138790  

The international community need to intervene in Syria

When will the international community finally step in and actively halt the civil war in Syria? It has been over two years, since opposition forces began their campaign against the Bashar al-Assad regime with no end in sight. The United Nations estimate that almost 100,000 people have been killed and many more been injured.

In the last few days the UN refugee chief, Antonio Guterres, has reported that the conflict in Syria has become the worst refugee crises facing the world since the Rwandan genocide in 1994. Guterres estimates that over 6000 Syrians are fleeing the conflict every day, with Turkey, Jordan and Iraq being the main destinations. On top of this figure, the UN further estimates that over 6 million people are in need of aid supplies.

This report from the UN is quite disturbing, seeing that I would have thought, and I assume others would as well, that the international community would have learnt its lesson after the Rwandan genocide, but this does not seem the case.

I think that with all the recent reports over the last few months, of chemical weapons been deployed by both sides, that’s if the information is correct, and now with the ever increasing death toll and refugee crises, outside intervention may need to be examined even further.  The small amount of light military and other supplies to the opposition forces by the United States and European nations does not seem to be giving an advantage to the rebels, especially since government troops are being supplied with heavier weaponry from Russia.

The best option to end this conflict is through peace talks, but this has failed in the past and is unlikely to happen in the near future. Both sides seem content on fighting to the death and innocent civilians are becoming by-standers suffering the most. The only option that I can see to bringing peace is for more concerted effort by the outside world to actively intervene. To achieve this option would be for a meeting to take place between the all five permanent UN Security Council members and other nations from the region to discuss and hopefully come to a better solution to ending the conflict, then what has been proposed in the past.

The report by the UN on the scale of the violence and instability caused to millions of Syrians will I hope motivate more concerted action by the international community, before more innocent lives are lost. 

Why is China afraid of the Dalai Lama?

On the 6th July, Chinese police shot at and injured a dozen or so Tibetan Monks, as they were trying to celebrate the birthday of the Dalai Lama in Sichuan province, China. News reports indicated that two monks were shot in the head and many more were injured by scuffles with the police and army.

This incident is just one of the many that have taken place over the past decades since China's invasion of Tibet in the 1950’s, and forced the Dalai Lama into exile in India. The last major crackdown on Tibetan monks protesting against Chinese rule was in 2008, when many were killed in clashes with Chinese security forces.

The Chinese have brutally ruled over the Tibetan people ever since the invasion in 1950, banning them from openly worshipping the Dalai Lama, and repressing their religious and political freedoms.

China has claimed that they have helped develop and modernise Tibet, even gave them an autonomous region status, but most of the development has been in favour of the Han Chinese immigrants, not the native Tibetans.

The Dalai Lama has in recent years acknowledged that China will probably never grant independence to Tibet, but he has called for more autonomy to the Tibetan people; however this seems to have fallen on deaf ears back in Beijing. The Tibetans are still treated like second class citizens with no rights for choices over their lives. Only a couple of weeks ago there were reports that the Chinese authorities in Tibet have forced hundreds of thousands of Tibetans from their nomadic lives, and moved them into newly built housing complexes, where they had to pay for half the construction costs. Majority of Tibetans are poor farmers, and by this action alone they have become indebted to the Chinese state.

I think that although the Dalai Lama as the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people has a point that China is unlikely to grant independence to Tibet, especially since millions of Han Chinese have migrated to the region and billions of dollars have been spent on infrastructure projects, the Chinese authorities should relax their repressive policies, and allow more autonomy for the Tibetan people.

I have been to Tibet, although many years ago, and I noticed that at every monastery and on the streets of the capital, Lhasa, the Chinese have uniformed and undercover security personnel everywhere, spying on the activities of the Tibetans.

From my personal experience, the Tibetan, like all those who are spiritually connected to their religions (and their connection to their religion not associated with political and economic powers) are peaceful and accommodating of others. Hence I do not understand why the Chinese are so threatened by the Dalai Lama, a man who promotes peace among his supporters rather then violence. 

I also can not understand why the Chinese do not allow the Tibetans to practice their Buddhist faith openly, without repression from the authorities.

I think that the Tibetans, whose faith teaches peace and harmony, are unlikely to take up arms and begin a violent revolution any time soon. Like all others who feel desperate for freedom, it is their last resort. All they would probably wish for is just some basic human rights and freedom to practice their faith.       

Australia’s Political Situation is Calm Compared to Egypt

How exciting. With in less than a week, one country has replaced its leader and another looks on the verge of changing its leader. 

I am writing about the political situations in Australia and Egypt. 

In Australia, the governing party internally ousted the Prime Minister and re-installed a man that once experienced the fate of the unfavoured PM. All was done in a matter of hours, some cared, some didn't, and the public continue to live their lives without much interruption. 

In the case of Egypt, if the large amount of the population and the military, get their way, are intent of removing their President from office, even if the outcome is for more violence.

The political situation in Australia is calm compared to the situation in Egypt, and last week's leadership change was conducted without violent protest or threats from the military. But if you have been watching or reading the news, you would know that Egypt is once again on the verge of further political and social unrest, with violent protests and the military announcing that if President Morsi and opposition parties do not resolve the crises by this Wednesday, they may step in again, meaning more violent conflict between the different political and social groups.

In case of Australia, nothing much has changed in the daily lives of most Australian’s after Kevin Rudd ousted Julia Gillard from power, and the leadership change has not  greatly impacted on the lives of most. But in Egypt, a leadership crisis or change seems to have major implication for majority of the people. They have and still do suffer from economic and social issues that in Australia, where I am from, do not suffer on the scale as Egyptians do. Australia has a stable political and social system, with a constitution, which has protected the rights of its citizens for over 100 years, but in Egypt, this does not seem the case.

In Australia there is a peaceful manner in which most leaders are removed, and is reasonably orderly, with some short of rules governing a political coup, either through a general election, or a party ballot. But it seems in many countries around the world, political crises turns into almost a civil war, has been experienced in Egypt of the last few days, and even decades. 

The last few days has shown me that I am lucky that a political leadership change did not affect me personally and most of my fellow citizens. Of course, we will always suffer from quite mundane issues, like small rises in petrol or milk prices, or even a slight hike in our electricity bills, but compared to the situation in Egypt and other countries, facing political and social unrest, I feel quite lucky to be an Australian.

For me, I cannot imagine any short of mass violent protests on the streets of the Australian capital, Canberra, or even the military calling for the government and opposition parties to resolve any crises or they will step in and take charge of the country. For this I hope that in the future, Egypt and the many other courtiers around the world, suffering the extent of political and social unrest, that they can peacefully resolve their issues, and perhaps even one day be able to change leaders without so much violence and unrest.