Connect with us

Middle East

The Necessity of Rethinking the U.N. Approach towards International Developments

Mohammad Yusefvand

Published

on

United Nations Organization, established in 1945, is an international organization with some important missions. As it has been stated in its charter, United Nations Organization is dedicated to maintaining international peace and security and cooperating in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. A review of the U.N.’s record in fulfilling those missions may raise serious questions about the U.N. approach to deal with international developments. From its inability to stop the horrors in Myanmar, to the more recent crises like the Yemeni crisis, U.N.  double standards have projected the image of U.N. inefficacy. The U.N. was supposed to play a pivotal and unbiased role in upholding rights and international law and ensuring accountability. The biased stance of the U.N. towards different international developments and crises has raised the question that “how credible and qualified is U.N. in fulfilling its stated mission?”

There have been controversy and criticism of the U.N. and its activities since at least the 1950s. One of the main criticisms has been about the excessive influence of oligarchies over U.N. decisions and policies. The influence of some rich countries, such as Saudi Arabia which is known to be the chronic violators of human rights issues, on the U.N. decisions has jeopardized the credibility of the Organization. One of the most recent palpable examples that shows the seriousness of the criticisms against the U.N. is the Yemeni crisis.

The Yemeni crisis began in 2011 continued to be a protracted war against Yemeni people. The Saudi-led coalition, which is backed by the United States, Britain and others, created increasingly adverse circumstances which brought devastating and catastrophic consequences for Yemeni women, children and unarmed civilians. The conflict has left more than 21 million people in Yemen dependent on foreign aid to survive. In addition to crippling the infrastructure of the country, the widespread lack of access to healthcare has led to the fastest-growing cholera epidemic ever recorded. Indiscriminate violence has resulted in more than 10,000 civilians being killed and at least 1,340 children being killed or maimed since March 2015.

With the mission to put an end to the international conflicts, the U.N. has just failed to do so. In 2016, the former U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon publicly acknowledged that the Saudis applied full pressure with a threat to cut off ties with the U.N. if the organization did not remove the country from a blacklist of groups violating children’s rights in the conflict in Yemen.

The annual “Children and Armed Conflict” report is produced at the request of the U.N. Security Council. The U.N.’s 2015 report originally listed the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen under “parties that kill or maim children” and “parties that engage in attacks on schools and/or hospitals.” The report, which was based on the work of U.N. researchers in Yemen, attributed 60 percent of the 785 children killed and 1,168 injured to the bombing coalition. Saudi Arabia used the threat of withdrawing funds from critical U.N. programs to compel the U.N. Secretary-General to remove the coalition from his “List of Shame” for killing and maiming children and attacking schools and hospitals in Yemen.

To the U.N.’s great discredit, Saudi’s threatening to issue a fatwa (religious decree) “against the U.N., declaring it anti-Muslim, which would mean no contacts of O.I.C. members, no relations, contributions, support, to any U.N. projects, programs.” succeeded. With United Nations bowing to Saudis pressure, the legitimacy of this international organization is under a big question mark. The U.N. action brought many condemnations from other international organizations. Amnesty International, as one of the important international organizations, stood against this action and severely criticized the U.N. for doing so.

The U.N. overlooked horrific violations of international laws by the Saudi-led coalition in exchange for receiving money from it. Such examples seriously undermine the credibility of the U.N. as a mediator in international crises. If the United Nations does not resist the blackmailing of Saudi Arabia and other rich countries including its Gulf state’s allies, it might leave the impression that one can do anything and buy immunity with money.

With the pressure that Saudi Arabia received from its attack on Yemen, it seems that Saudis are trying to continue their attacks under a thin veneer of humanitarian aids. In doing so, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on 28 March 2018. In his meeting, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman presented a cheque for $930 million to U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres to help alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. It is an irony that the country which has created the crisis says that it tries to alleviate the problem but still continues its ruthless bombardments.

Receiving such donations from countries like Saudi Arabia seems to deepen the dependency and vulnerability of this international organization. Receiving aid from a country which has made no effort to solve the Yemeni crisis but just added to the insecurity of the region, makes the United Nations vulnerable to Saudi’s policy towards purchasing immunity from any U.N. determinations on their actions including their horrendous record of bombing hospitals and civilian targets in Yemen. Being always subject to pressure from member nations, especially the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, U.N. secretary-generals must not succumb to pressure and act decisively, without fear of reprisal, to stop countries from exerting undue pressure.

It is a fact that the United Nations has been derailed from its primary goals to some extent and there are big and serious questions about its inadequacies and failures. The United Nations needs urgent reform to ensure the Organization is fit for purpose in coming decades. Reform must be met in different parts including structure, functions and responsibilities.

One of the main factors that can contribute to the U.N.’s efficiency to be more applicable in the present international context and in the future is its decisive fight against gross and systematic violations of human rights by authoritarian regimes like Saudi Arabia.

Although the implementation of reform is extremely complex and widely contested, it is inevitable for the U.N. to take a serious look at revising itself. With the emergence of new global threats such as global financial instability, global terrorism, climate change, regional conflicts and so on, United Nations presence should more serious and independent.

Continue Reading
Comments

Middle East

Turkey and the time bomb in Syria

Mohammad Ghaderi

Published

on

The Turkish attack on northern Syria has provided conditions for ISIS militants held in camps in the region to escape and revitalize themselves.

Turkey launched “Operation Peace Spring” on Wednesday October 9, claiming to end the presence of terrorists near its borders in northern Syria. Some countries condemned this illegal action of violation of the Syrian sovereignty.

The military attack has exacerbated the Syrian people’s living condition who live in these areas. On the other hand, it has also allowed ISIS forces to escape and prepare themselves to resume their actions in Syria. Before Turkish incursion into northern Syria, There were many warnings that the incursion would prepare the ground for ISIS resurgence. But ignoring the warning, Turkey launched its military attacks.

Currently, about 11,000 ISIS prisoners are held in Syria. ISIS has claimed the responsibility for two attacks on Qamishli and Hasakah since the beginning of Turkish attacks.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump said that Turkey and the Kurds must stop ISIS prisoners from fleeing. He urged European countries to take back their citizens who have joined ISIS.

It should be noted that the U.S. is trying to prove that ISIS has become stronger since the U.S. troops pulled out before the Turkish invasion, and to show that Syria is not able to manage the situation. But this fact cannot be ignored that ISIS militants’ escape and revival were an important consequence of the Turkish attack.

Turkish troops has approached an important city in the northeast and clashed with Syrian forces. These events provided the chance for hundreds of ISIS members to escape from a camp in Ayn Issa near a U.S.-led coalition base.

 The camp is located 35 kilometers on the south of Syria-Turkey border, and about 12,000 ISIS members, including children and women, are settled there. The Kurdish forces are said to be in charge of controlling these prisoners.

Media reports about the ISIS resurgence in Raqqa, the former ISIS stronghold, cannot be ignored, as dozens of terrorists have shot Kurdish police forces in this city. The terrorists aimed to occupy the headquarters of the Kurdish-Syrian security forces in the center of Raqqa.  One of the eyewitnesses said the attack was coordinated, organized and carried out by several suicide bombers, but failed.

In response to Turkey’s invasion of Syria, the Kurds have repeatedly warned that the attack will lead to release of ISIS elements in the region. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyib Erdogan denied the reports about the escape of ISIS prisoners and called them “lies”.

European officials fear that ISIS prisoners with European nationality, who have fled camps, will come back to their countries.

Kurdish forces are making any effort to confront Turkish troops in border areas, so their presence and patrol in Raqqa have been reduced.

Interestingly, the Turkish military bombarded one of temporary prisons and caused ISIS prisoners escaping. It seems that ISIS-affiliated covert groups have started their activities to seize the control of Raqqa. These groups are seeking to rebuild their so-called caliphate, as Kurdish and Syrian forces are fighting to counter the invading Turkish troops. Families affiliated with ISIS are held in Al-Hol camp, under the control of Kurdish forces. At the current situation, the camp has turned into a time bomb that could explode at any moment. Under normal circumstances, there have been several conflicts between ISIS families in the camp, but the current situation is far worse than before.

There are more than 3,000 ISIS families in the camp and their women are calling for establishment of the ISIS caliphate. Some of SDF forces have abandoned their positions, and decreased their watch on the camp.

The danger of the return of ISIS elements is so serious, since they are so pleased with the Turkish attack and consider it as an opportunity to regain their power. There are pictures of ISIS wives in a camp in northern Syria, under watch of Kurdish militias, showing how happy they are about the Turkish invasion.

In any case, the Turkish attack, in addition to all the military, political and human consequences, holds Ankara responsible for the escape of ISIS militants and preparing the ground for their resurgence.

Currently, the camps holding ISIS and their families are like time bombs that will explode if they all escape. Covert groups affiliated with the terrorist organization are seeking to revive the ISIS caliphate and take further actions if the Turkish attacks continue. These attacks have created new conflicts in Syria and undermined Kurdish and Syrian power to fight ISIS.

From our partner Tehran Times

Continue Reading

Middle East

The Turkish Gambit

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

The only certainty in war is its intrinsic uncertainty, something Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan could soon chance upon.  One only has to look back on America’s topsy-turvy fortunes in Iraq, Afghanistan and even Syria for confirmation.

The Turkish invasion of northeastern Syria has as its defined objective a buffer zone between the Kurds in Turkey and in Syria.  Mr. Erdogan hopes, to populate it with some of the 3 million plus Syrian refugees in Turkey, many of these in limbo in border camps.  The refugees are Arab; the Kurds are not.

Kurds speak a language different from Arabic but akin to Persian.  After the First World War, when the victors parceled up the Arab areas of the Ottoman Empire, Syria came to be controlled by the French, Iraq by the British, and the Kurdish area was divided into parts in Turkey, Syria and Iraq, not forgetting the borderlands in Iran — a brutal division by a colonial scalpel severing communities, friends and families.  About the latter, I have some experience, having lived through the bloody partition of India into two, and now three countries that cost a million lives.   

How Mr. Erdogan will persuade the Arab Syrian refugees to live in an enclave, surrounded by hostile Kurds, some ethnically cleansed from the very same place, remains an open question.  Will the Turkish army occupy this zone permanently?  For, we can imagine what the Kurds will do if the Turkish forces leave.

There is another aspect of modern conflict that has made conquest no longer such a desirable proposition — the guerrilla fighter.  Lightly armed and a master of asymmetric warfare, he destabilizes. 

Modern weapons provide small bands of men the capacity and capability to down helicopters, cripple tanks, lay IEDs, place car bombs in cities and generally disrupt any orderly functioning of a state, tying down large forces at huge expense with little chance of long term stability.  If the US has failed repeatedly in its efforts to bend countries to its will, one has to wonder if Erdogan has thought this one through.

The Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 is another case in point.  Forever synonymous with the infamous butchery at Sabra and Shatila by the Phalange militia facilitated by Israeli forces, it is easy to forget a major and important Israeli goal:  access to the waters of the Litani River which implied a zone of occupation for the area south of it up to the Israeli border.

Southern Lebanon is predominantly Shia and at the time of the Israeli invasion they were a placid group who were dominated by Christians and Sunni, even Palestinians ejected from Israel but now armed and finding refuge in Lebanon.  It was when the Israelis looked like they were going to stay that the Shia awoke.  It took a while but soon their guerrillas were harassing Israeli troops and drawing blood.  The game was no longer worth the candle and Israel, licking its wounds, began to withdraw ending up eventually behind their own border.

A colossal footnote is the resurgent Shia confidence, the buildup into Hezbollah and new political power.  The Hezbollah prepared well for another Israeli invasion to settle old scores and teach them a lesson.  So they were ready, and shocked the Israelis in 2006.  Now they are feared by Israeli troops.   

To return to the present, it is not entirely clear as to what transpired in the telephone call between Erdogan and Trump.  Various sources confirm Trump has bluffed Erdogan in the past.  It is not unlikely then for Trump to have said this time, “We’re leaving.  If you go in, you will have to police the area.  Don’t ask us to help you.”  Is that subject to misinterpretation?  It certainly is a reminder of the inadvertent green light to Saddam Hussein for the invasion of Kuwait when Bush Senior was in office. 

For the time being Erdogan is holding fast and Trump has signed an executive order imposing sanctions on Turkish officials and institutions.  Three Turkish ministers and the Defense and Energy ministries are included.  Trump has also demanded an immediate ceasefire.  On the economic front, he has raised tariffs on steel back to 50 percent as it used to be before last May.  Trade negotiations on a $100 billion trade deal with Turkey have also been halted forthwith.  The order also includes the holding of property of those sanctioned, as well as barring entry to the U.S.

Meanwhile, the misery begins all over again as thousands flee the invasion area carrying what they can.  Where are they headed?  Anywhere where artillery shells do not rain down and the sound of airplanes does not mean bombs.

Such are the exigencies of war and often its surprising consequences. 

Author’s Note:  This piece appeared originally on Counterpunch.org

Continue Reading

Middle East

Could Turkish aggression boost peace in Syria?

Published

on

On October 7, 2019, the U.S. President Donald Trump announced the withdrawal of American troops from northeast Syria, where the contingent alongside Kurdish militias controlled the vast territories. Trump clarified that the decision is connected with the intention of Turkey to attack the Kurdish units, posing a threat to Ankara.

It’s incredible that the Turkish military operation against Kurds – indeed the territorial integrity of Syria has resulted in the escape of the U.S., Great Britain, and France. These states essentially are key destabilizing components of the Syrian crisis.

Could this factor favourably influence the situation in the country? For instance, after the end of the Iraqi war in 2011 when the bulk of the American troops left the country, the positive developments took place in the lives of all Iraqis. According to World Economics organization, after the end of the conflict, Iraq’s GDP grew by 14% in 2012, while during the U.S. hostilities the average GDP growth was about 5,8%.

Syria’s GDP growth should also be predicted. Not right away the withdrawal of U.S., French, British, and other forces, but a little bit later after the end of the Turkish operation that is not a phenomenon. The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has been going on since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire when Kurds started to promote the ideas of self-identity and independence. Apart from numerous human losses, the Turks accomplished nothing. It is unlikely that Ankara would achieve much in Peace Spring operation. The Kurds realize the gravity of the situation and choose to form an alliance with the Syrian government that has undermined the ongoing Turkish offensive.

Under these circumstances, Erdogan could only hope for the creation of a narrow buffer zone on the Syrian-Turkish border. The withdrawal of the Turkish forces from the region is just a matter of time. However, we can safely say that the Turkish expansion unwittingly accelerated the peace settlement of the Syrian crisis, as the vital destabilizing forces left the country. Besides, the transfer of the oil-rich north-eastern regions under the control of Bashar Assad will also contribute to the early resolution of the conflict.

It remains a matter of conjecture what the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia agreed on during the high-level talks. Let’s hope that not only the Syrians, but also key Gulf states are tired of instability and tension in the region, and it’s a high time to strive for a political solution to the Syrian problem.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy