Connect with us

International Law

The UN Security Council Reform? – No tricks from the BRICS

Published

on

Should Brazil (along with other BRICS members) continue to insist in the UN Security Council Reform?

For a long time Brazil wants to be part of the political condo of power, which is the UN Security Council. The Brazilian claim appears to be worthy, as it demands a new geopolitical dynamics of the world. It is true that the organization focused on Peace and International Security has retrograde composition, which refers to the post-Second World War years. While some member countries, thinkers and UN officials agree with the reform, the divergence lies in several questions: number of members, geographic limitations, the use of the veto and administrative issues, such as the amendment to the Charter, and financial resources.

Since the League of Nations Brazil is interested in becoming part of the Security Council. Although the United States established what would be the League of Nations and later the United Nations, the country did not participate fully in the first multilateral organization because of the bill’s blockade by the US Congress. So, with the gap of an American representative in the Security Council, Brazil proposes, in 1921, to be the regional representative, however it fails to succeed. It becomes therefore a non-permanent member, asking to leave the organization in 1928, when it realizes that its pursuit to become a permanent member would never be accepted.

After replacing the League of Nations by the United Nations, Brazil requested once again to be part of the body that represents peace and global security, but it was not successful again, as American interests would therefore be represented by the United States. In 1965, the Council passed through its only reform: it increased the number of non-permanent seats from 6 to 10, remaining 5 nations as permanent members (United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China). The reason for this reform lies most importantly in the fact that the United Nations increased its total number of member countries, however, the most powerful nations, the Permanent 5, remained the same.
Until 2010 there was continuity in the Brazilian foreign policy with regards to policies for UN Security Council reforms. Brazilian actions had gradual but slow progression. The G-4, comprising Brazil, India, Japan and Germany, reinforced the representation and the convergence to change the status quo of the international security body. Moreover, Brazil’s performance in peacekeeping missions under the title coined by Brazil “Responsibility while Protecting” instead of “Responsibility to Protect” also proved to be very efficient and effective at that time, especially the Brazilian role in Haiti through MINUSTAH.

The Responsibility while Protecting [1], a proposition that corroborated more with the Brazilian demand in world affairs, stated that the right of interference, mentioned in the UN Charter, should be used with respect to principles and with predetermined parameters, for instance, limiting the use of force, using it only when necessary, but also under Security Council authorization. So Brazil proved to prefer “Peacebuilding” instead of “Peace Enforcement”. This pacific and humanitarian narrative of Brazil strengthened, in part, both its claim to have a permanent seat and Brazil’s performance in the body.

Currently, the Brazilian permanent campaign (VARGAS, 2011) to reform the Security Council is frozen. Although President Dilma Rousseff has supported the reform and stated in her speech at the 69th UN General Assembly, Brazil seems to have no credentials to do so anymore, because it sort of lacks the enthusiasm that had before, and also because it has no specific direction to the theme. In recent and important global issues (Ukraine and Syria), Brazil did not positioned firmly.

Concerning peace missions, an area that Brazil is a traditional contributor, the challenge now is its low financial support to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). In a recent article [2], the representative of the Department, Herve Ladsous, said that the low cooperation of member countries is shrinking, which leads him to act with “versatility and creativity” in its mandate. Of the resources donated to the body, Brazil has the lowest numbers compared to other emerging countries, countries which do not have the same Security Council Reform narrative as Brazil, nor tried to coin an important term that could be propagated and used more often as the legal basis of peacekeeping missions: the Responsibility while Protecting.

Brazil therefore should insist and persist on the Reform of the Security Council, but before that, its discourse must be coherent and consistent with Brazilian goals. If the country wants to be part of a reformed political condo, it needs a priori to coordinate its strategies to maintain the homogeneity of its narrative. It makes no sense plead reforms without having the certainty that the country will be able to hold their shares in the future.

Moreover, beyond the already mentioned objective ideas, Brazil also needs to overcome the problems related to its Armed Forces, its performance in Peacekeeping Missions, its financial aid to the UN budget, and its lack of empathy and support from Latin American countries. In this way, to propose a new configuration of world power is a worthy cause and it should be part of a long-term goal. To slowly transform the world’s “unipolarity” into multipolarity is essential so that important issues can be discussed in a global scale, as well as considered and analyzed by great powers, developing and poor countries. To demand for change, particularly at the most important UN body, it will always be something worth fighting for.

International Law

Shaping a 21st-century world order amounts to a patchwork

Avatar photo

Published

on

What do Moroccan arms sales to Ukraine, a transnational Russian Iranian transit corridor, and US assistance in developing a Saudi national strategy have in common?

Together with this week’s Russian-Iranian financial messaging agreement and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s December visit to Saudi Arabia, they are smaller and bigger fragments of a 21st-century world order in the making that is likely to be bi-polar and populated by multiple middle powers with significant agency and enhanced hedging capabilities.

So is the competition between rival US and Chinese technologies for which the jury is still out.

For the two likely dominant powers, the United States and China, the building blocks are efforts to line up their ducks in a bipolar world.

For Russia, they involve hanging on to its pre-Ukraine war status, in part by deploying its Wagner Group mercenaries to the Sahel; devising ways to circumvent sanctions; and hoping that time will work in its favour in what was supposed to be a blitzkrieg but has turned into a drawn-out slugging match.

For middle powers, the name of the game is carving out their own space, leveraging their enhanced influence, and seeking advantage where they can.

The result is that weaving the 21st century’s tapestry amounts to a patchwork in which some fragments will have long-term effects while others may not even register as a blip on the radar.

Take, for example, Morocco’s decision to give Ukraine some 20 refurbished Russian-made T-72B battle tanks. The deal made Morocco the first African, if not the first Global South nation, to militarily aid Ukraine.

The move, almost a year into the Ukraine war, is likely to have been motivated by short-term considerations, including Russia’s close ties to Morocco’s arch-rival Algeria and US recognition of Morocco’s claim to the formerly Spanish Western Sahara, rather than long-term 21st-century world order considerations.

Even so, Morocco’s breaking ranks with much of the Global South serves the US goal of sustaining the current world order in which it is the top dog, even if its power diminishes.

It doesn’t fundamentally affect China’s goal of rebalancing power in the existing order to ensure that it is bi- rather than unipolar.

The loser in the deal is Russia, which, like Iran, wants to see a new world order in which the United States is cut down to size.

The tank deal may not be a significant loss for Russia, but it does suggest that horse trading is a critical element in weaving the fabric of a new order.

So is mutual interest.

Like the arms sale, the agreement between Russia and Iran to create a financial messaging system that would allow their banks to transfer funds between one another and evade sanctions that block their access to the global SWIFT system is unlikely to have a major impact on the structure of the new world order.

Russian and Iranian efforts to link Europe with the Indian Ocean, centred on 3,000 kilometres of rail and sea and river shipping, are potentially far more significant.

The transport corridor would help reshape trade and supply networks in a world that seems set to divvy up into rival blocs. Moreover, it could shield Russia and Iran from US and European sanctions as they forge closer economic ties with fast-growing economies in Asia.

Russia and Iran are not just looking at India, which sits at one extreme of the corridor.

They also expect to capitalise on their links to China. All three are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and China and Iran are close to becoming members of the Russia-dominated Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) free trade zone.

Of a similar potential impact on a future world order is US assistance in Saudi Arabia’s development of a first-time-ever long-term vision for the kingdom’s national security, an essential building block in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s effort to modernize his military.

Saudi Arabia expects to disclose its strategy later this year. It would codify “the kingdom’s strategic vision for national security and regional security,” according to Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the top commander of US forces in the Middle East, who is advising his Saudi counterparts.

Shaping Saudi strategy as well as military modernization may be the United States’ best bet to imbue at least some of its values and complicate the establishment of similar defense ties with China or Russia. Moreover, it would enhance the kingdom’s ability to absorb and utilize US weapons systems.

“The Saudis, under MBS’s (Mohammed bin Salman’s) leadership, now recognize (their) deficiencies and seem, for the first time, determined to address them in partnership with the United States and to a degree with the United Kingdom,” said political-military analyst and former Pentagon official Bilal Y. Saab.

That will undoubtedly register on the geopolitical chessboard, even if small moves also count for something.

Continue Reading

International Law

Undemocratic United Nations and Global Peace

Published

on

War is not the solution to any problem rather war is a problem itself. Many countries believe in diplomacy and peaceful means of problem-solving and conflict resolution. But, unfortunately, many nations still seek solutions of problems and continuity of politics in wars.

If we look at any newspaper, we find too many armed conflicts going on around the globe. To name a few would include a catastrophic war between Russian Federation and Ukraine which has caused tens of thousands of casualties, with millions displaced. Decades-long civil wars and subsequent US-led NATO intervention and withdrawal has brought Afghanistan to the brink of famine and hunger. The whole Middle Eastern region is unstable and striving with civil wars for long. The Arab -Israel conflict and Kashmir Dispute have been there for more than seven decades.

Above-mentioned and many others examples of armed conflicts prove that there is no durable peace in the world. Here one thing that needs to be noted is that conflict is always inevitable among individuals, societies and nations, because the interests of individuals, societies and nations do not always converge. When there is divergence of interests, conflict arises.

What is needed to be done is the resolution of these conflicts. There are two ways to resolve conflicts: one is violent way (use of force) and the other is peaceful way (diplomacy and negotiations). More than seven decades ago, after World War 2, nations realized that war is not solution to any problem and they established United Nations Organization (UNO). Primary objective of UN was and is the maintenance of peace and security in the world.

But, if we look at history, it seems the UN has failed to achieve international peace and security. UN may have had role in preventing the outbreak of another world war, but it could not stop a series of conflicts from Korea, Vietnam to Afghanistan (during Cold War), and from Africa, Middle East to ongoing Russian-Ukraine conflict.

This is a question mark on the credibility of UN, that why the UN despite being guardian of international peace and security cannot stop wars.

UN has six principal organs and many Specialized Agencies and Funds for different tasks.  Among them Security Council is the most powerful Organ and is mandated with enforcing international peace and security. UNSC uses two tools to enforce its decisions, one is applications of sanctions and the other is use of force (intervention).

However the concentration of power in the hands of five permanent states of Security Council, namely the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia have been problematic. These five countries use veto power whenever they perceive any resolution to be against their national interest or against the interests of their allies. Throughout the Cold War, US and USSR had paralyzed UN by vetoing resolutions. Same happened with any other conflict including when US drafted a resolution to stop the war in Ukraine.

So, it is crystal clear that if UN (specifically Security Council) is not reformed, UN can not achieve its primary goal i.e. maintenance of peace and security. UN members and experts have talked about reform in Security Council. Experts have also given suggestions and proposals to make UN more democratic and representative. One of those proposals is abandoning veto and doubling the size of SC members. This can make UN more democratic and representative to some extent. But this is not an easy job. Firstly, because P5 are reluctant to abandon this privileged position (veto power). Secondly, countries hoping for permanent membership are opposed by other countries. For example, many European countries object Germany’s membership. Pakistan objects to India’s membership.

 Experts believe the solutions could be the democratization of UN system (particularly UNSC). This is done by involving General Assembly in the decision making regarding international peace and security. General Assembly is a symbol of democracy, representing almost all the states on the globe. Simple or two-third majority must be mandatory to make any decision regarding international peace and security. This could stop any powerful state to use UN as a tool for its own vested national interest , and the decision of majority will prevail. All the states, big and small, powerful and weak will have equal say in the UN. Otherwise the possibility of wars, violence, genocide and injustice will further increase.

Continue Reading

International Law

United States thinks it’s ‘the exception to the rules of war’

Avatar photo

Published

on

The architects of those Nuremberg trials—representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France fully expected that the new United Nations would establish a permanent court where war criminals who couldn’t be tried in their home countries might be brought to justice. In the end, it took more than half a century to establish the International Criminal Court (ICC). Only in 1998 did 60 nations adopt the ICC’s founding document, the Rome Statute. Today, 123 countries have signed.

Guess what superpower has never signed the ICC? Here are a few hints? – writes Rebecca Gordon in an article at “The Nation”:

Its 2021 military budget dwarfed that of the next nine countries combined and was 1.5 times the size of what the world’s other 144 countries with such budgets spent on defense that year.

Its president has just signed a $1.7 trillion spending bill for 2023, more than half of which is devoted to “defense” (and that, in turn, is only part of that country’s full national security budget).

It operates roughly 750 publicly acknowledged military bases in at least 80 countries.

In 2003, it began an aggressive, unprovoked (and disastrous) war by invading a country 6,900 miles away.

Yes! The United States is that Great Exception to the rules of war.

While, in 2000, during the waning days of his presidency, Bill Clinton did sign the Rome Statute, the Senate never ratified it. Then, in 2002, as the Bush administration was ramping up its Global War on Terror, including its disastrous occupation of Afghanistan and an illegal CIA global torture program, the United States simply withdrew its signature entirely. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (photo) then explained why this way:

“The ICC provisions claim the authority to detain and try American citizens — U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, as well as current and future officials — even though the United States has not given its consent to be bound by the treaty. When the ICC treaty enters into force, U.S. citizens will be exposed to the risk of prosecution by a court that is unaccountable to the American people, and that has no obligation to respect the Constitutional rights of our citizens.”

The assumption built into Rumsfeld’s explanation was that there was something special — even exceptional — about US citizens. Unlike the rest of the world, we have “Constitutional rights,” which apparently include the right to commit war crimes with impunity.

Even if a citizen is convicted of such a crime in a US court, he or she has a good chance of receiving a presidential pardon. And were such a person to turn out to be one of the “current and future officials” Rumsfeld mentioned, his or her chance of being hauled into court would be about the same as mine of someday being appointed secretary of defense.

The United States is not a member of the ICC, but, as it happens, Afghanistan is. In 2018, the court’s chief prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, formally requested that a case be opened for war crimes committed in that country. ‘The New York Times’ reported that Bensouda’s “inquiry would mostly focus on large-scale crimes against civilians attributed to the Taliban and Afghan government forces.” However, it would also examine “alleged C.I.A. and American military abuse in detention centers in Afghanistan in 2003 and 2004, and at sites in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, putting the court directly at odds with the United States.”

Bensouda planned an evidence-gathering trip to the United States, but in April 2019, the Trump administration revoked her visa, preventing her from interviewing any witnesses here. It then followed up with financial sanctions on Bensouda and another ICC prosecutor, Phakiso Mochochoko.

So where do those potential Afghan cases stand today? A new prosecutor, Karim Khan, took over as 2021 ended. He announced that the investigation would indeed go forward, but that acts of the United States and allies like the United Kingdom would not be examined. He would instead focus on actions of the Taliban and the Afghan offshoot of the Islamic State.

When it comes to potential war crimes, the United States remains the Great Exception. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were just a little less exceptional?

If, for instance, in this new year, we were to transfer some of those hundreds of billions of dollars Congress and the Biden administration have just committed to enriching corporate weapons makers, while propping up an ultimately unsustainable military apparatus, to the actual needs of Americans?

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if just a little of that money were put into a new child tax credit? – asks Rebecca Gordon.

International Affairs

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia1 hour ago

A Hybrid Political System for Pakistan: A Proposal

The political system of Pakistan is an amalgamation of Islamic, British, and Indian influences, shaped by a multifaceted array of...

china india pakistan china india pakistan
South Asia3 hours ago

Regional Implications of Strategic Triangle of China-India & Pakistan

Strategic Triangle is defined as three states binding in a triangle’s strategic relationship. It is focused on three factors. 1)...

gun terrorism gun terrorism
Americas5 hours ago

America’s Exceptionalism in Mass-Shooting and Its Culture of Rugged Individualism

Amid an unrelenting surge of gun massacres, many have wondered why the United States- the world’s leading country in mass...

Southeast Asia9 hours ago

Can the BURMA Act Coagulate the Frozen Conflict in Myanmar?

The BURMA Act of 2021, which seeks to hold the Myanmar’s military junta responsible for human rights violation, is up...

Tech News11 hours ago

EU and Singapore launch Digital Partnership

EU and Singapore are strengthening their cooperation as strategic partners. Following the announcement of a new Digital Partnership between the...

Eastern Europe12 hours ago

Ukraine war’s first anniversary and beyond

The first anniversary of Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine falls on February 24. The Russian strategy of attrition war...

Environment14 hours ago

The Green Deal Industrial Plan: putting Europe’s net-zero industry in the lead

Commission presents a Green Deal Industrial Plan to enhance the competitiveness of Europe’s net-zero industry and support the fast transition...

Trending