Connect with us

Diplomacy

Return of Global Stewardship: The UNSC should urgently address Covid-19 – addendum

Published

on

Authors: Amb. Hasmy Agam and Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarevic

Further to the points of view undersigned authors expressed nearly two months ago it is to a deep regret that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) still misses to adopt the much-needed Council Resolution to address the COVID-19 (C-19) pandemic event. This is largely due to the tensions between two of its five permanent members (P5) — the US and China, with Washington wanting to apportion blame or responsibility to China relating to the pandemic, and Beijing rejecting any discussion or reference to it. Additionally, the two keep opposite views on the role and conduct of the UN Specialised Agency for health matters, Geneva-based World Health organisation (WHO).

This kind of approach is totally misplaced, short-sighted, and uncalled for. It clearly lacks the maturity and wisdom that the international community expects from the principal or Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Tellingly, petty bilateral differences (and silence of other members) had created an unnecessary wedge between the parties, instead of subduing their differences in the larger scope and broader interests of the international community in the wake of the devastating global event.

Ought to (no-)vote

Interestingly, the very history of voting in the SC indicates that the ratio between adopted and vetoed resolutions is roughly 10 to 1 (2518 adopted SC resolutions, since 1945 until April 2020 vs. 293 vetoed ones for the same period). This shows that other parties, notably the non-permanent members of the UNSC, have usually played a vigilant, persistent, even pivotal role, in ensuring that the Council acts responsibly and timely on matters flagrant to the Charter and of concern to the international community at large.

Arguably, the P-5 states – along with their Big Power concerns, and their frequent mutual deterrence – have often been self-entrenching instead of reaching a consensus in the Council. Conversely, the non-permanent members, with their consensus-building approach, have generally been in a better position to contribute towards ensuring the much-desired and all-embracing stewardship of the Council. This has been the traditional role of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) for decades (since Bandung of 1955 and Belgrade of 1961), with laudable support of neutral countries of the North (so-called N+N group).

Attempts by the Group of 20 (G-20) and the European Union (EU) to bridge the gaps on the C-19 issue have failed to bring the desired result thus far. Given this impasse, it seems better and more efficacious for the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)/G-77, along with other key regional groupings of huge membership and wide outreach, such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the African Union (AU) – to add to the EU, G-20 and others – by taking a more prominent role in forging the much-needed consensus at the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies (directly or via the UN EcoSoc).

It is amply clear from the C-19 event that the right to health is an issue for all. The search for a vaccine to control the pandemic is not a matter of private business, but individual rights, as embedded in the UN Charter, and as obligatory to each of the UN Specialized Agencies. Binarization of debate onto a pro-and-con vaccine is also a dangerous reductionism and waste of planetary energy critically needed for a holistic and novel approach. Consequently, there is no one-directional medical research in response to any pandemic, and no single-blended (or manufactured) and mandated medication for all. (Dogma is based on belief; science necessitates constant multidimensional exploration.)

Proportionality of our (current and future) responses is another key issue. Hence, what presents itself as an imperative is universal participation through intergovernmental mechanisms. That very approach has been clearly demonstrated by UN member states, as shown by the active roles played by Indonesia (in the SC, along with another ASEAN, and NAM member, VietNam; and on behalf of the general membership of the UN General Assembly), Azerbaijan (on behalf of NAM) and France (on behalf of the P5 and the EU) reaching out to Tunisia – a member of the Arab League (LAS), AU, OIC and NAM. Same line has been also endorsed by the UN Members States on 18 May 2020 in relation to the independent inquiry of the WHO conduct. 

After all, this is well recognised by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres himself, who recently stated that “With two thirds of UN Member States, the Non-Aligned Movement has a critical role to play in forging global solidarity”.

Storm, yet no Reform

It is rather disappointing that despite widely held expectations, the (French-Tunisian sponsored) draft SC Resolution did not address the C-19 issue per se and on ways of addressing its rapid spread. Instead, it focused on the need to effect a global ceasefire in existing conflicts in specific member states, as called for by Secretary-General Guterres, much to his credit, so as to facilitate distribution of much-needed food and medicines to the people in these conflict-torn countries.

This inaction by the UNSC contrasts sharply with what this leading world body did in 1984, when it addressed the EBOLA pandemic in Africa and unanimously adopted a far-reaching Security Council Resolution (UNSC 2439 (2018) — containing 18 preambular paragraphs and 17 operative ones, on specific instructions to, or demands, on a number of African states in conflict, to take effective steps to control or impede the spread of the EBOLA virus.

Nevertheless, even with the limitations of that French-Tunisian draft Resolution, it would have resulted, if adopted, in a humanitarian pause for at least 90 consecutive days crucial for the delivery of aid to the hardest-hit communities, and giving time to the international community to focus on combatting the C-19. But this was not to be, due to the bad dynamics in the UNSC, and the consequent results will be continued conflicts and unimpeded spread of the secondary effects of virus in those countries in conflict, much to the disappointment and chagrin of the international community.

Clearly, the problem lies not in the unwillingness of the international community to do the needful to stop, mitigate, shorten, localise or avoid, the spread of the pandemic and its secondary effects, but the failure of the UN SC, the most influential and authoritative organ of the world body, to live up to international expectations and to deal decisively with this global calamity that has repercussions to international peace and security, as it did during the EBOLA pandemic.

The lack of unity within the UNSC in addressing the current challenge raises that never-ending question of the urgent reform of the Council with its inherently undemocratic decision-making process. It is largely due to the outdated power of the Veto that stultifies and blocks consensus that is vitally important to the UN as it grapples with the many grave problems confronting the increasingly globalised and inter-connected international community.

The failure of the UNSC to reach a consensus is due to the inherent weakness of its decision-making mechanism, as well as paucity of unity among its non-permanent members. It is also to the lack of stronger involvement – on the very work of the UNSC – by the larger UN membership, as represented by the NAM/G-77, but alsoby other principal organs of the United Nations – primarily in the UNGA and ECOSOC. Thus, the UNSC in times of critical conjunctures – as this event and its yet not fully anticipated secondary effects are – appears as still stuck in a kind of a time warp, oblivious of the changes that have taken place, and are unfolding all over the world.

Goes without saying that exceedingly sluggish, lackadaisical and endless consultative/negotiation process on the Council reform and restructuring that has been going on for over two decades, needs to be urgently expedited. It is sine qua non if we are any serious with the times, demands and expectations of the Member States’ present and future populations, and with consolidation of international and cross-generational solidarity.

Clearly, complex world demands smooth fast and multifaceted coordination and collaboration among the various agencies of the UN system, under the leadership of the UN Secretary-General. It must be dynamic, innovative and holistic, so as to enable our Universal Organisation and all other intergovernmental FORAs – that architecture our world – to anticipate and speedily deal with the challenges that will surely emerge periodically in the future.

A restored trust necessitates a proactive and timely response but also calls for an enlarged, not reduced, participatory base.

Continue Reading
Comments

Diplomacy

Higher Education and Diplomacy: Essential Skills for Becoming a Diplomat

Published

on

Do you want to become a diplomat? Are you interested in learning more about diplomacy? If yes, you should know that diplomatic skills play a key role in today’s global society. Therefore, mastering these skills is crucial for students who aspire to pursue a career in international affairs or diplomacy.

A career in diplomacy requires specific knowledge and expertise beyond academic study. To achieve their goals. Young diplomats must master various aspects of communication and negotiation. With conflict management, crisis response, cultural awareness, and language proficiency.

“Diplomatic skills” encompass a wide range of abilities. From interpersonal relations to public speaking and effective leadership. These skills are essential in negotiating agreements between countries, improving trade relations, and resolving conflicts. Here are the crucial skills for becoming a diplomatic.

Education Requirements

Although there are no set educational prerequisites to enter the field of diplomacy. A degree in a relevant subject can help hone the abilities needed to succeed in the industry. Writing assignments are often very important for university students.

Most colleges require that students complete at least three academic papers per semester. And since these papers usually take several weeks to complete. You must learn to give yourself plenty of time to craft a high-quality piece. It would be best if you always doubled check the assignment requirements before starting to write your paper. Make sure you’ve covered every aspect of the assignment, use a Fixgerald plagiarism checker to ensure your papers are unique and meet the necessary requirements, and check your topic selection to referencing style. If you need help figuring out where to start, consider asking your professor for guidance.

Since diplomats might go in several different directions professionally. Knowledge in a wide range of disciplines is useful. All candidates, however, need to have a solid grasp of international relations and diplomacy. So many people choose to major in similar fields.

For example, a master’s in global studies and international relations prepares students to understand the complex interplay of politics, law, economics, and security worldwide.

You can choose from four concentrations. Thid includes global health and development, conflict resolution, diplomacy, and international economics and consulting.

Some Degrees Give You An Upper Hand

U.S. diplomats have varied levels of education, from high school diplomas to doctorates.

In a great number of nations, including the USA and UK, among others. To enter the diplomatic service, one must first score well on a general aptitude test. Candidates for FSO positions should therefore brush up on their foundational skills such as algebra, reading comprehension, and reasoning in advance of taking these exams. The purpose of such tests is to gauge the applicant’s general knowledge.

It is helpful but not required to have a background in history, politics, law, or human rights. Most embassies and consulates will tell you that learning about government and international politics is essential if you want to work in diplomacy as a career.

Learn More Languages

For the simple reason that the United States mandates pre-departure language training for all successful applicants. Being able to speak the language well is not a prerequisite for a diplomatic position. However, your application will stand out more if you have international experience and can speak two or more languages. It is more valuable than knowing Chinese, Arabic, Farsi, or Urdu to be able to speak and write your native language.

After a person has done well enough on the test to get in. Most embassies and consulates will perform exhaustive interviews and screenings to establish if a candidate is qualified for a foreign service position.

Be Prepared For The Challenges

The field of foreign service is a challenging one. The ability to keep in touch with loved ones is a challenge for FSOs. This is because officers frequently have to uproot their families in order to serve, and the job itself can be strenuous. However, this in no way diminishes the value of a career as an FSO. There are always a lot of prospective FSOs and experienced officers at an embassy or consulate, all of whom want to get posted somewhere exciting.

Rookies will generally be sent to the most dangerous places first. Since seniority is the most important factor in finding a new job. If you want to be a good FSO, you need to be able to adjust to change. They need to be self-aware enough to see when they need assistance, and determined enough to put in the work required to succeed.

Conclusion

Are you interested in studying to become a diplomat? There are plenty of opportunities, and you don’t even need to go abroad to get them. The reality is diplomacy is both a science and an art. And because it involves negotiation skills, communication ability, and conflict resolution. It requires specific skills. To become a good diplomat, you need to develop these essential skills.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Religious diplomacy

Avatar photo

Published

on

With the pandemic still hanging over our heads and a looming global recession, there’s a simple question before us: Will the world move forward–or fall back?

If we want freedom to spread, open societies to grow, trade to increase, and economic growth to advance, we must all see these as interconnected. They transcend day-to-day politics and grow instead from older, deeper sources, particularly religion. Not the kind imposed from above, but the kind that grows through and across societies and cultures. For those who understand the value of that kind of faith, what has happened in Bali, Indonesia must be engaged.

There is a remarkable convergence of religious wisdom and perspective in Indonesia this week; all the world needs to pay attention, especially the parts that might have looked down on the so-called Global South.  Recent weeks have seen contentious elections and surprising volatility even in the most stable countries. In Sweden, a nationalist party has surged to the forefront. In the United Kingdom, three Prime Ministers in a matter of months.

Beyond and behind these surprising headlines is a gathering global turbulence.

The institutions that inspired free trade, open borders and remarkable economic growth are deteriorating. We have several choices before us.

We can do nothing, but that would hardly provide us much hope for the future. We would only face greater headwinds and worse outcomes. We can replace those institutions, but there are few if any convincing or compelling ideas about what those substitutes would be. Or we can work to critically examine our institutions, see where their foundations are weakening, and seek out thoughtful ways to replenish and renew them.

In Bali, the R20 is launching to pursue that path of replenishment and renewal. Launching through and alongside the Group of 20 or G20, that body’s Religion Forum (“R20” for short) will mobilize faith leaders to ensure that religion functions as a genuine and dynamic source of peace, progress and prosperity in the 21st century. Among the R20’s goals is “infusing geopolitical and economic power structures with moral and spiritual values.”

One of the world’s senior Islamic scholars, Dr. Abdul Karim Al-Issa, Secretary-General of the Muslim World League, announced on day one of the R20: “Major global challenges today are not merely political or economic … They are moral. And navigating the world out of these crises requires moral leadership. This year, the world’s religious leaders are for the first time part of the G20. It is time we acknowledge that religion must be part of the solution for global crises.”

This is exactly what the G20 needs; even many of its most stable countries are stumbling. Like the United States, some lack shared unifying practices–a monarchy is one example–and so their polarization becomes ever more severe. Could thoughtful, compassionate, and genuine religious traditions, developed over generations to become meaningful pillars of diverse societies, be the answer?

As a member of the nobility of the Royal Sultanate of Sulu, a 600-year-old historical thalassocracy, I have dedicated many years working with traditional Islamic monarchies in Southeast Asia and have a unique viewpoint on why the R20 matters. Considering I was born in the Roman Catholic faith, this might be a rare perspective of course, since many in the West–the historic core of the developed world–know comparatively little about Islam or Southeast Asia.

Let alone Islam in Southeast Asia.

Which is why launching the R20 in Indonesia is massively meaningful. Not only is Indonesia the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, but it is also of course a G20 economy, a secular democracy, and home to the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), a unique organization that represents some 100 million moderate Muslims–a huge portion of Indonesia’s population. Its General Chairman, Mr. Yahya Staquf, is a compelling Muslim thinker and scholar, who has challenged critical misinterpretations of Islam.

In my purview, the NU is a major reason why Indonesia has remained a secular democracy.

To begin this conference in such a dynamic society is incredibly heartening; not only does the Forum gain from the experience of one of the world’s largest Muslim bodies, but that body (the NU) is also closely partnering with the previously mentioned Muslim World League, the world’s largest Islamic non-governmental organization, to build the R20. A wise pairing: NU promotes a pluralistic approach to Islam, with roots in Southeast Asia going back many centuries. That makes the Muslim World League a natural partner and amplifier.

Behind its Secretary-General, Dr. Muhammad bin Abdul Karim Al-Issa, the Muslim World League has become a remarkable force for moderation, inter-faith and intra-faith dialogue, and global religious consciousness. The NU and the MWL reach huge numbers of Muslims, the world’s fastest-growing faith community, much of which lives outside the G20. If the principles of an open world order are to survive and expand, they will need to find ways to engage audiences beyond their borders.

To convince them that their values and many of the original sources of the G20’s dynamism are not at odds. That is something NU, the Muslim World League, and the R20 can well do.

To say nothing of their wider reach. In that spirit, in fact, the Muslim World League announced at the R20 “a new humanitarian fund for the victims of war everywhere.” Not only is the fund not directed only to Muslims, but it also reaches beyond Muslim-majority countries more broadly. Dr. Al-Issa emphasized that Ukraine would be a primary area of the fund’s focus. That is sure to encourage other faith leaders in attendance that the R20 is not just an exercise in lofty rhetoric, but active, on-the-ground engagement.

His Holiness Pope Francis has already addressed the R20; he is joined in his participation by other leaders of the Catholic Church, the world’s largest single faith denomination, as well as senior representatives of the Protestant World Evangelical Alliance, representing 600 million believers in over 140 countries. That is not to mention clergy from Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, as well as other Christian and Muslim traditions. In that spirit, the next G20 (and R20) will take place in India, followed by Brazil; the world’s largest Hindu and Catholic countries, respectively.

India is a place where more conversations about religion, the state and freedom need to happen urgently. About 84% of the world’s population say religion is important, if not very important to them—the future of the world’s freedom and flourishing requires a thoughtful engagement with the thoughtfully religious. Without religious freedom, there cannot be economic freedom. Without economic freedom, we are unlikely to see meaningful, sustainable, long-term human flourishing. And in that aspect, Dr. Al-Issa is right, religion must be part of that process.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

The Soft Power: The U.S.-Chinese-Russian Competition

Avatar photo

Published

on

The US-Chinese-Russian competition for global influence is not limited to military, economic, and technological tools, but extends beyond them to the realm of soft power. Traditionally, the concept of force in international relations refers to the military and economic spheres and is described as hard power, and it tends to coerce, whether through the actual use or threat of force, or the imposition or threat of economic sanctions. Also, hard power includes incentives, in all its forms and levels, that a strong state presents to a weaker one, or hints at depriving it of them. On the other hand, soft power avoids direct tools of coercion or enticement, and instead seeks to influence by marketing an attractive and successful human, cultural, political, and economic model, or by focusing on higher value systems, building persuasive narratives, or talking about a system of more balanced international, based on fair rules and principles…etc.

The three great powers realize the importance of soft power within the previous determinants, and then each of them tries to promote either its own model or the benefits that will accrue to the world if it stands with it. In this context, we recall the Chinese-Russian summit, which brought together Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, early this year in the Chinese capital, Beijing, during which they pledged to work to end the uniqueness of the United States in global hegemony and work to establish a new international order based on multipolarity. In the joint statement issued by the two leaders, there were clear references to soft power, as the two sides approach it, whether in terms of rejecting unilateral approaches in addressing international issues and resorting to force and interference in the affairs of states and infringing on their legitimate rights and interests, or in terms of rejecting the Western definition of democracy and how to practice, and thus the misuse of democratic values ​​and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights. On the other hand, Washington reiterates its accusations that the two sides are trying to destabilize the foundations and ‘the rules of the international system’, and considers that these foundations and rules, which it considers itself a custodian, guarantee the establishment of stability globally.

I live in a country where the First Constitutional Amendment fortifies freedom of expression, no matter how different the prevailing beliefs and convictions are. This was one of the dimensions President Joe Biden alluded to as the 2020 nominee when he spoke of strengthening American leadership globally, through the ‘power of the model’ and ‘reclaiming moral leadership.’

In practice, there is a vast discrepancy between claimed or endorsed American values, and their practice. Nevertheless, the United States succeeds in employing soft power to its advantage, even if it contains degrees of deception and hypocrisy. Perhaps a critic of American foreign policies from the heart of Washington itself, without fear or apprehension of arrest or direct targeting, what serves the purposes of American propaganda, as this supports its other soft power tools, such as claiming to carry the banner of democracy and human rights in the world, even if there is a contradiction between the example and reality. I do not want to simplify the previous issue here, as there is some complexity in it. The constitutionally protected freedom of expression may be subject to political or security abuse, but this is another story. Also, American soft power is based on additional menus that appeal to many people, even in China and Russia, such as the imagined American lifestyle offered by Hollywood, and the vast space for success possibilities, or through the companies like Cable, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Starbucks…etc.

Hence, the concept of American soft power and its tools are broader and deeper than their Chinese and Russian counterparts. In the cases of Beijing and Moscow, we find a focus on soft power in terms of competing with the US model of hegemony and interfering in the affairs of states under various pretexts, including democracy and human rights, but they overlook that they are no less a violation of just international values ​​and rules than the United States. In addition, the bulk of their use of soft power is directed at authoritarian regimes that are fed up with Washington’s repeated ‘lectures’ on democracy and human rights, even if they do not care about them, while both China and Russia focus on commercial and military interests, without blackmail in the name of freedoms, democracy, and human rights.

As a result, the soft power of each of these parties, in essence, carries a lot of coercion, not less than hard power, but rather a complement to it. The United States employs its soft power to remain at the top of the pyramid of the international system as a hegemonic superpower, and then values ​​are often subject to considerations of interests rather than morals. While China and Russia seek to weaken American hegemony, and their soft power has implicit coercive relations, whether through economic involvement, as China does, with countries that request their help, or dumping dictatorial regimes with all kinds of expensive weapons that are not conditional on respecting the rights of their people, as they do Russians.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Energy55 mins ago

Analyzing China Solar Energy for Poverty Alleviation (SEPAP) Program

In 2014, China deployed a large-scale initiative named as Solar Energy Poverty Alleviation Program (SEPAP) to systematically alleviate poverty in...

Europe3 hours ago

Significance of first EU-Bangladesh political dialogue

The European Union (EU) and Bangladesh held their first “political dialogue” on Thursday (November 24) in Dhaka to “elevate” their...

Energy6 hours ago

USA-KSA Energy War and Global Energy Crisis

The response of the USA to OPEC and its partner’s plan to reduce output by two million barrels per day...

Eastern Europe11 hours ago

Is a Marshall Plan for Ukraine possible?

Reflecting on Ukraine’s future beyond the current conflict, many politicians and experts speculate about the expediency of a new Marshall...

International Law14 hours ago

Why International Institutions Survive: An Afterword to the G20 Summit

We, of course, are extremely critical of the very idea of global institutions and the prospects for their survival amid the emergence of a qualitatively...

Terrorism Terrorism
Defense16 hours ago

America Produces Biological Weapons; Does Russia? Does China?

On November 26th, Russia’s RT News bannered “US ‘military biological activities’ a threat to the world – Russia”, and reported...

South Asia20 hours ago

The Taliban Finally Granted Permission to the Former President Karzai to leave Afghanistan

Based on the information, the former president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was permitted to leave the country. At a time,...

Trending