By Jonathan Power.
Posted Thursday, October 24 2013 at 00:00
Posted Thursday, October 24 2013 at 00:00
In Summary
Since the Cold War ended the Council has
authorised 51 operations, deploying troops to conflict zones. Often they
have been given, as in the Congo today, more muscular mandates than
just holding the ring, as has been the tradition.
Diplomats at the UN were amazed last week when
Saudi Arabia did the unthinkable and turned down the seat it had just
won on the Security Council.
The ten rotating seats- that join those of the
Permanent Five (the US, UK, France, Russia and China)- are regarded as
the most prestigious spots in international diplomacy.
Saudi Arabia had badly wanted that seat. But the
moment it got the votes that handed it to it, it stepped back. The BBC
reported that this created “shock and confusion”. The Russian Foreign
Ministry called it “bewildering”. No state has done this before.
Saudi Arabia accused the UN of “double standards”.
It pointed to the Security Council’s failure “to find a solution to the
Palestinian cause for 65 years”. It also criticised the UN for its
“failure” to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction,
including Israel’s nuclear weapons.
Strangely, in the light of a joint Russian-US
accord on how to get rid of Syria’s chemical weapons that won the
endorsement of the Security Council, Saudi Arabia accused the UN of
allowing the Syrian government “to kill its own people with chemical
weapons....without confronting it or imposing any deterrent sanctions.”
But in the next two years there will be many other
issues besides these that will come to the attention of the Security
Council. Moreover, the ten rotating members have what is called the
“Sixth Veto”. For example, in 2003 the US and UK couldn’t get the 9
votes necessary to legitimise their planned action over going to war
with Iraq- mainly because of a negative vote by the African members. The
subsequent invasion was illegal in international law.
The Security Council falls well short of
perfection but without it the world would be in sorry shape. Even during
the Cold War when the Soviet Union and the Western nations seems to
compete to veto each other’s proposals, there was agreement on 17
peacekeeping operations.
Since the Cold War ended the Council has
authorised 51 operations, deploying troops to conflict zones. Often they
have been given, as in the Congo today, more muscular mandates than
just holding the ring, as has been the tradition.
The US is by far the most important funder of UN
peacekeeping, with Japan in second place. Pakistan, Bangladesh and India
are the big troop providers with Ethiopia and Nigeria in second place.
Although “Big Five” members have contributed peacekeeping troops none
are in the top ten. Nor is Saudi Arabia or, come to that, any Arab
country.
During the Cold War the Security Council did not
make use of sanctions except on two occasions: against white-ruled
Southern Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe) and apartheid-era South Africa.
But from the early 1990s on they have been widely
used against countries such as Iraq, ex-Yugoslavia and Haiti. In the
beginning the poorest often suffered the most, as happened in Iraq.
These days sanctions are more carefully focussed-
often designed to hurt the governing elite and its many privileges.
Around a dozen embargoes are in effect. Even Russia and China have voted
for sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program. International
policy on terrorist financing has been harmonized. The Security Council
has authorised action against Somali pirates (dramatically but
truthfully portrayed in the new film, “Captain Phillips”).
SOURCE: THE CITIZEN
Certificate-of-origin regimes have curtailed to some extent the
trade in “blood diamonds” that financed several African civil wars.
The Security Council also has the power to refer
cases of genocide and crimes against humanity to the prosecutor of the
International Criminal Court. It did this for the first time in 2005,
resulting in a (still outstanding) warrant for the arrest of Sudanese
president, Omar al-Bashir.
There is plenty to criticize the Council for. In
1993 the US, which worked side by side with the UN in Somalia- part of
the UN but not of it- pulled out its troops after eighteen Army rangers
were killed in an attempt to capture a warlord. Subsequently, President
Bill Clinton sought to lay the blame on the UN, even though the rangers
had been commanded directly by the US, not the UN. This malicious
attempt to blacken the UN had a malign influence on American public
opinion, constraining peacekeeping operations for many years. It was
also a major contributory cause in Somalia descending into the pit of
mayhem it now finds itself in.
In the Balkans during the civil wars the UN failed
its mandate on a number of occasions. Most notorious of all was the
failure of Dutch troops to protect the men and boys of Srebrenica from
mass slaughter. In the Congo UN troops have been accused of rape and
looting.
Saudi Arabia has plenty to contribute to the work,
much of it of inestimable value, of the Security Council. Its decision
to withdraw is inexplicable.
SOURCE: THE CITIZEN
