Month: October 2020

 

Many analysts contend that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) introduced by the United Nations Development Programme and adopted by many world leaders in September 2015 continue to lack the inclusion of certain fundamental principles, such as defense and security. Although the UN reaffirms their notions of peace and stability according to the targets of Sustainability Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), much of those objectives do not mention the need to address state militaristic corruption and sustainable fiscal progress in the defense sector. It is also interesting to note that the framework for the SDGs derives from the Millenium Development Goals implemented in 2000, which also did not include any mention of addressing security and defense.

 

As a result, since the turn of the century, displacement of persons due to violence has been exacerbated by many inter-regional conflicts and wars. A record 79.5 million persons  have been forcibly displaced at the end of 2019 according to a report published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. At least 100 million persons were forced to flee their homes during the last 10 years alone, as forced displacement and statelessness has remained high on the UN agenda in recent years and continues to generate much needed discussion within global policy forums. Furthermore, several major crises have contributed to the displacement of persons, two of which have been the result of warfare and violence exacerbated by regional militaristic forces – the Syrian conflict and South Sudan’s post-independence fallout.

Solutions that would assist in security and defense reforms would involve several UN agencies addressing not only the reduction in flow of illegal arms, but also criminalizing the corruption that pervades defence and security institutions and ensuring they work for citizens, not just those in power. Moreover, fiscal governance must be taken into account to ensure that defense spending is not disproportionately allocated from the overall state budget while not addressing other pertinent issues such as public health, education, and infrastructure. Although there are many agencies that work towards peacekeeping and bilateral solutions amongst nations and agencies alike, not having a forthcoming target that addresses military corruption cannot advance the overall goal of global peace and security.

 

Sources:

https://www.ft.com/content/af202f82-72be-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c

Global Trends 2019: Forced Displacement in 2019

https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/peace-justice/

https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-16-peace-justice-and-strong-institutions.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2019/0619/UN-Record-71-million-people-displaced-by-war-and-violence

 

Half billion people around the world live in continuous violence, that is unstoppable. In many of these places, from the Middle East to Africa, not the police officers or government officials that enforce the order and security within the war zones. However, it is the blue-helmeted troops of the United Nations. According to the Crisis of Peacekeeping reading, UN peacekeepers make up the second-largest military force deployed abroad, after the U.S. military. Their role is mainly set out to protect civilians, train police forces, disarm militias, monitor human rights abuses, organize elections, provide emergency relief, rebuild court systems, inspect prisons, and promote gender equality.

The UN as an organization did and still facing challenges, in regards to creating world peace in war zones around the world. The failure of the UN in avoiding conflicts is ongoing, and the best example for that will be the situation of Yemen (the longest war). The UN failed to regain stability in the Yemen region. I think that the failure can be result of multiple factors, such as  the structure of the organization itself. The power of the security council members in making war zones decisions can be viewed as conflict of interest.

According to the “Crisis of Peacekeeping” reading, the reason for this failure is a lack of resources; since the UN relies on contributions from its members. Also, the question of fundamental misunderstanding about what makes for a sustained peace.

While reading about if the UN needs mending nowadays, I came across an opinion/article at thehill.com that speaks about how the UN and some alliances will matter for the upcoming elections in the U.S. To my surprise and understanding, what I took away the most from this article is how broken the U.S. is and how the present administration is backfiring at different efforts and achievements made by the U.S in the last several decades. I even think the article became “too political” at one point for my taste when I wanted to read more about the UN and alliances affecting the country instead. Nevertheless, I decided to use this article because it did mention (and explained) how throughout history the U.S. planted the seeds for what we know today as pacific alliances worldwide, and by doing so the achievement of diplomatic relationships that would have been impossible otherwise. 

The title of this post refers to a couple of quite accurate sentences describing the current state of the U.S. where a lot is happening (social injustice, social movements, uncontrollable fires, an unstoppable virus killing people left to right, unemployment figures not seen in decades, an economy collapsing, and more). And the observation that stroke me the most was: “Decades after its founding, the United Nations is in need of serious reform. The Security Council is broken, and the General Assembly irrelevant”. Therefore, are both (the U.S. and the UN) broken and in need of mending? 

To answer this question simply, I think they are. The U.S. is longing for the golden years of hegemonic power and the UN is working based on an outdated system, and hence both need to fix, rearranged, and updated to the current circumstances of the world. Societies have changed and thus countries, but organizations and institutions do not always reflect these changes, but unless they readjust to new situations, their work is not only useless but their existence is pointless. 

The other strong argument made in this article speaks about the Trump administration breaking or pulling over from different alliances worldwide, which historically placed the U.S. in a privileged position. This isolationist behavior is not only making the U.S. losing diplomatic and leadership ground in the political arena, but it is enabling other powerful countries like China to call this empty spot their own and in doing so winning the favor of the world. My intention is not for the U.S. to go back and impose its presence and authority once again, but to create and use new strategies to gain back the lost ground with a more diplomatic approach (including with regions or countries where it saw no benefit before). This would be part of an updated and mended U.S. with a fresh globalist approach. The author of the article thinks that hope is not lost in regards to repositioning the U.S. in key global alliances due to the historical delivery of the U.S. of values such as democracy, freedom, open markets among many others. Many other countries share these same values and hence would be willing to unite forces with the U.S. In his opinion, the only threat to this global “repositioning” of the U.S. is Trump being re-elected for a second term. In contrast, he thinks that the biggest U.S. competition (China and Russia) has no genuine alliances, but rather short term and valueless relationships. In the end, the U.S. still has the hope to gain the global leadership ground back, but many things must be fixed, changed, or stopped. 

As for the UN, many people have lost hope and even interest in the work they do. Their resolutions are seen as piles of papers and words that don’t take anywhere, and the future of the organization and overall purpose are questioned. Even during our class, we have briefly touched upon the UN and its usefulness. Given that this week we will discuss with more depth about the UN, with this post of mine and the article I found to share, I hope to bring more light to this topic and understand some instances still not clear to me. 

Thank you for your time! 

Maria Rodriguez-Ferreno. 

Link to article: https://bit.ly/3jScojd 

A good friend of mine spent this weekend marching the streets of New York and Boston in hopes of bringing attention to the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Being Armenian himself, the emotion of his stories of the struggle of his family escaping to Syria during the Armenian genocide was heavy. His bias against Turkey was clear, and with myself being uneducated on the subject I wanted to further research who the actors in this newly arisen conflict were. The first thing I discovered was, this is nowhere near a newly arisen conflict- yet instead the culmination of decades of hostility following a 1994 ceasefire. The second issue I was surprised by is the land they are fighting for is a land-locked enclave. Generally when I imagine a fight for land between two countries, I imagine a border war- two sides pushing back and forth in order to establish cartographical lines. 

While the Nagorno-Karabakh region is located inside Azerbaijan and occupied by ethnic Armenians, Turkey is using its power and influence to support Azerbaijan. Turkey being a member of NATO, whose core value is to support peace, brings the question of why they are instead instigating a war? The fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan complicates Armenia’s claim of unwarranted hostility. Now that a NATO member is clearly involved, there is a potential for this local conflict to evolve into a powder-keg when all the regional powers want to establish who truly has the final say in issues in this region. 

The cease-fire that is currently being loosely-observed was brokered by Russia. Russia has their own mutual-defense treaty with Armenia, but still holds close ties with Azerbaijan. Iran has also reached out to Russia to discuss the conflict. If Russia and Iran decide to back Armenia’s claims and Turkey vows to stand side by side with Azerbaijan, the rest of the NATO members get put in a very precarious position. Do they step up to defend their Turkish ally or are the risks simply too large? 

 

Kramer, A. (2020, October 03). ​Why Is Conflict Erupting Again Between Armenia and Azerbaijan? Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/article/armenian-azerbaijan-conflict.html

Troianovski, A. (2020, October 10). Fighting Eases, Briefly, After Cease-Fire Between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/10/world/europe/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh.html

In the article “The Crisis of Peacekeeping: Why the UN Can’t End Wars”, the author Severine Autesserre examines the history of UN peacekeeping missions and operations and details why these operations are often ineffective in restoring peace to chaotic, war torn areas. The author goes on to prescribe a “bottom-up” approach of empowering local individuals instead focusing on implementing the dictates of uninterested foreign powers.

I agree with the author that such an approach would greatly increase the effectiveness of UN peacekeeping mission and I believe that such an approach would work to defuse the current conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno Karabakh. A ceasefire that was negotiated by the Russian government has failed to hold and I believe that the reason for this happening is that they are not really trying to get the local powers to find a solution themselves, rather, they are trying to just stop the fighting so as to prevent the situation growing out of hand.

Throughout the world, there has been more and more rising nationalism driven by populist policies and a generally higher mistrust of global institutions and global governance.  Due to this, there has been a dismantling across the board and questioning of these global governance structures (whether it was Trump’s rhetoric on NATO, the U.K. and Brexit from the EU, as well as some countries and their relationship to the United Nations and the WTO).  For the United Nations, due to their lack of peacekeeping ability (in terms of military peacekeeping efforts as well as enforcing treaties and other international rules and laws).

Because of the bureaucratic nature of the U.N. when it comes to peacekeeping and ability to enforce those standards as well as a rising nationalistic overtone to national politics of various countries, there seems to be less effectiveness for the U.N. when it comes to peacekeeping as well as global governance.  This is exacerbating the divide of opinions about the nationalistic vs. globalistic views, and also the gap between the dire necessity for global governance such as the U.N. vs. the people’s perceptions of its needs, especially in a global pandemic and rising tensions and increasingly hostile policies in both talk and trade.

Since there doesn’t seem to be anything bridging this divide at the moment, things seem to be increasingly less stable and tensions seem to be heightening in a time of high volatility, and international diplomacy may be at a standstill.

Republicans in the US have long been skeptical of or outright hostile to the United Nations. In January 2017, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) re-introduced the American Sovereignty Restoration Act to withdraw the United States from the United Nations and other multilateral bodies, cease all payments to the UN, and “repeal” all agreements with the UN. Rep. Rogers re-introduced it again in January of 2019. The bill has yet to make it out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but the sentiment behind the bills has been shared by other prominent Republicans as well as Republican voters. In 2019, Pew found that only 36% of Republicans had a positive view of the UN, compared to 77% of Democrats.

There are a few common arguments against the United Nations. The first, as Rep. Rogers’ bill implies, is that the United Nations poses a grave threat to US sovereignty. Republicans, particularly Evangelical Christians, fear the United Nations will impose ‘globalist, liberal’ values on unwilling God-fearing Americans and increase what they believe to be widespread persecution of Christians in the US. The New York Times reported on a draft Executive Order in January of 2017 called “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties” that called for a review of all current and pending treaties. Two treaties were called out in an explanatory statement, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of course, the United States is the only UN-member nation not to be a party to the Rights of the Child, and is one of the few nations, along with Iran, Somalia, and Sudan, not to ratify CEDAW.

The arguments against these treaties are that they unfairly infringe on US domestic policy. Parental rights groups argue he Convention on the Rights of the Child infringes on the rights of parents. They believe children “belong” to parents and this treaty will lead to parents being forced to send their children to public school overruling parents’ desires in religious and sex education. There is also fear that if rights are recognized, welfare must be expanded to provide for those things, which Republicans oppose. Parental rights leader Michael Farris, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and founder of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, has put forward an amendment to the Constitution to enshrine these rights, which has been supported by Republican Senators. The explanatory statement in the draft order also specifically calls out that the treaty could be used to ban spanking, a common practice in conservative homes. The ACLU has argued that these concerns are overwrought. The US had a large role in devising the treaty and it incorporates a great deal of US law. It is true that some US laws would need to be adjusted, however. The US is also the only country in the world to sentence children to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Similar arguments are made against ratifying CEDAW. The administration claims it would “prohibit the celebration of Mother’s Day,” for instance. Of course, many other nations that have ratified the treaty, like the UK, celebrate Mother’s Day, so it is unclear how they drew that conclusion. The same groups who have successfully halted the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment argue that the US Constitution protects women so CEDAW is not needed. They argue that because CEDAW promotes reproductive rights, access to contraception, and gender equality in all spheres of society, it will lead to discrimination or even legal consequences against those who believe in “traditional family values.”

The other primary complaint is that the UN has an anti-Israel bias. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) has called the UN a “forum for anti-Semitism” and introduced legislation to “combat systemic bias and targeting” against Israel. The United States, particularly the Republican party, has sought to defend Israel in the UN by vetoing resolutions challenging Israel on Palestinian rights and settlements in disputed territories. Republican’s support for Israel is largely based on an Evangelical Christian belief that the nation of Israel is important for fulfilling end-times prophecy. Citing God’s promise to Abraham and the prophecy of Balaam, they argue that if the United States turns its back on Israel, God no longer bless the US and it will ultimately be destroyed.

Despite the rhetoric of Republican leaders, polling has shown high levels support among Americans for the United Nations and ratification of CEDAW and Rights of the Child. No doubt if Vice President Joe Biden should win the election, he will seek to rebuild the US’ reputation and leadership at the UN. Should President Trump win re-election, however, speculation has already begun that he would withdraw the US from NATO and the United Nations. Evangelicals and Republicans might cheer, but the world will be less equipped to meet global challenges without US funding and leadership.

Thanks to the news coverage on Trump and NATO, it is easy to formulate the belief that NATO is facing a novel challenge to its legitimacy and its current form as we know it. While this is true in some respects, Kaufman presents the argument that President Trump represents just the latest in a series of political upheavals which appeared to pose a threat to the institution that has played a key role in snuffing out the centuries-old cycle of intermittent armed conflict among the big players on the European continent.

It can be argued that while the Trumpian problem vis a vis NATO is cause for concern, the alliance has weathered worse than the bandying of bombastic language. For example, prolonged U.S. geopolitical focus on Southeast Asia during Vietnam caused a shutter among NATO members in fears that the Americans may be neglecting the Russian bear looming in Eastern Europe. It was only several decades ago that another con-man in the Oval Office attempted to coax our NATO allies into “paying up” (looking at you, Tricky Dicky). U.S. democracy also has the ability to correct itself every four years; it just so happens that the day of reckoning is only a few weeks away. Perhaps a change in administrations will result in a Harmel Report-moment for NATO and reaffirm the military partnership designed to “keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

 

At a military parade this past Saturday, North Korea showed off the country’s long-range weapons. The NYTimes reports that it is unclear whether the powerful weapon was just for show or actually worked. Regardless, it gained plenty of attention. This was the first display of long-range weapons in two years.

Kim Jong Un vowed in his 2020 New Year’s message to produce a “new strategic weapon”. This message was all but forgot in the past year as the country battled COVID and devastating flooding.

CNBC reports that the missile is a “new, larger ICBM designed to carry multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs), allowing it to attack more targets and making interception more difficult.” It looks like Kim Jong Un kept his vow in presenting a tactical weapon.

Along with the new ICBM, Hwasong-15, the longest-range missile North Korea has ever tested was displayed, and a new submarine-launched ballistic missile.

It is clear Kin Jong Un is eager to prove the lethality of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and might even be publicly warning his intention to test the missile. For now, it looks like it was simply a matter of showcasing but we will see how things change after the election in a few weeks.

In medias res: maybe one of the biggest problems of the UN is anchored in its structure and legitimacy, which is a hostage of national interests of the Security Council (SC) Members and it will not change until every member state will receive a vote with the same value.

As a former auditor, I was used to analyzing the efficiency of organizations based on processes and selected case studies. Taking the example of the Iraq wars: Iraq became a collateral of conflicting US-Russian agendas in the Middle-East[1] and of the Syrian “spillover effect”. Efforts were made to avoid an open US-Russian military clash, but the inherited structural weakness of the SC fueled the proxy war in Iraq.[2]  An important reason is that the war became a regional and multinational conflict, has grown out of the horizon of the UN, and UN diplomacy was unable to deal with those challenges. The world has changed – but not the UN. This is a problem of an organization that was unable to adapt to the dynamic of real politics. According to Autessere[3]

But in fact, UN peacekeepers too often fail to meet their most basic objectives. On many deployments, they end up watching helplessly while war rages.

 Another dazzling example of an obvious failure of the UN (and the SC) was the refusal to grant expedited refugee status to the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) of minorities. This was for the UN a convenient “legal fig-leaf” for the ongoing shame. Thus, at the same time, both the US and Russia had the chance to keep the status quo and not to openly confront the issue. UN´s “religion-blind” aid policy is a shortcoming, a process failure, and cannot be undone. It ignores religious minorities due to its norms and the possible “violation of humanitarian principles” and results in paradoxical developments, such as the settlement of families of former ISIS fighters in the Christian villages of northern Iraq.[4]

Internal inefficiency and lack of communication within the UN are well described by the fact that former Secretary-General (SG) Ban-Ki Moon (and his successor António Guterres) prepared more than 30 “Secretary-General´s Reports” to the SC with detailed intelligence about “Yazidi, Christian and Shabak minorities, who fled for fear of genocide.”[5] but no resolution included a declaration that ISIS has been committing genocide and had no consequent results. This is a joint failure of SG and SC to raise the attention and act against the genocide.

UN´s former Undersecretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services[6] summarized referring to Sec-Gen. Ban Ki-Moon:

There is no transparency, there is a lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position.  I do not see any signs of reform in the Organization.

To evaluate the leadership of SG Guterres is too early. The former UNHCR High Commissioner might pay more attention to the topic.

The excessive use of veto right is an inherited institutional weakness of the SC. Russia had always a vital interest in stabilizing the Middle-East as her “backyard”. As a logical consequence, Russia vetoed every western motivated UNSC draft resolution on Syria since 2011, on the whole, 12 times[7]. It seems not realistic that any of the permanent members would ever renounce its veto right. A closed circle.

And while the other permanent members were involved in the power play, China successfully “infiltrated” the Iraq energy market. 60% of the electricity in Baghdad is produced by Chinese companies.[8] For reconstruction and economic development, energy is a key factor, and China has already manifested positions for the post-war period.

Finally, funding is the main concern. Financial contributions and political influence in the UN are diverging. Germany donated almost one-third of the total UNAMI budget and twice the amount of the USA. Together with Japan, it pays more to the UN budget than any permanent member except the USA, but is not on par with permanent members and have little to say.[9]

The reasons why and since when the UN lost path are various. After all, one tends to give a frustrated “yes” as an answer to T.G. Weiss´s provocative question “Would the World Be Better Without the UN?”[10] However, the recent Noble prize nomination for WFP – also one of the largest logistic enterprises of the world (with 100 airplanes, 6,000 trucks,  over 50 ships) shows that the UN and most of its agencies are an essential part of our world order. As Weiss formulates[11]

If the UN did not exist, we would have to invent it.

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” Global Research, November 18, 2006, https://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882

[2] A visible exception was the downing of a Russian fighter jet by the Turkish air defense on the Syria-Turkey border on November 24^th, 2015. (Author)

[3] Autesserre, Séverine. “The Crisis of Peacekeeping: Why the UN Can’t End Wars.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 101–116. EBSCOhost.

[4] Art. 44 Iraqi Constitution Article 44, 2^nd states that: “No Iraqi may be exiled, displaced, or deprived of returning to the homeland”. WIPO “Iraq Constitution” http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=230001 (on November 11, 2018)

[5] United Nations, Security Council, “First report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 2169 (2014)” S/2014/774, October 31, 2014, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/s_2014_774.pdf

[6] Colum Lynch, “Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo“ Washington Post, July 20, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html

[7] RTÉ News, “Russia’s 12 UN vetoes on Syria” April 11, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0411/953637-russia-syria-un-veto/

[8] Richard Wachman, “China pushes for bigger role in Iraqi reconstruction”, Arab News, November 12, 2018, http://www.arabnews.com/node/1257811/business-economy

[9] Germany condemned the 2003 US-invasion in Iraq and fell out of favor with the US as a candidate for a permanent seat.

[10] Weiss, Thomas G. “Would the World Be Better without the UN?” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 2, Summer 2017, pp. 29–38. EBSCOhost.

[11] “Ban Ki moon’s Thankless Position,” New York Times, 1June 2016.