UNDP WATCH: Analysis of the UN as the Institution of Global Governance

The United Nations included the Kurdish New Year “Newroz” into the list of humanity heritages and urged the members to put “Newroz” into their calendars, to celebrate and study it. Although it was seen as a positive step made by the UN, yet criticised by a number of the Kurdish scholars and intellectuals. The UN suggested that the members should “study” and celebrate it. A very quite look at the history of the “Newroz” reveals the fact that it is based on the Kurdish ancient historical and mythological account; but the UN has not included the routes of Newroz in its definition of it. “Newroz” is the day that the Kurdish blacksmith “Kawe” toppled the ancient Assyrian tyrant “Dehak”. His triumph was followed by celebration of the freed oppressed Kurds in the Mesopotamia; they lit fires to send the message of victory to the surroundings. For whatever reason it might be the UN has failed to “study” the history of Newroz itself; it failed to reveal the history of Newroz and the importance of Newroz for the Kurdish people.

Newroz is not as a simple celebration as conveyed by the UN; Newroz is the triumphal day of the oppressed people over their oppressors. Provided the UN has taken initiative to study and understand Newroz it should reveal the truth history of Newroz and see that how the Kurds are oppressed and are dealt with the most brutal and inhuman policies in the world. Just few days ago, three people were killed by the Syrian government in the Newroz celebration. But the UN did not take the most simple thing in the world; revealing a statement condemning the killing of innocent people. Right now 21 Kurdish human right activists are facing execution in Iran, was really UN bothered with taking any stance against all these inhuman policies carried out against the Kurds. In order to understand the UN, I see the necessity to look back into the history of UN and provide a critical analysis of it as the institute of the global governance.

The United Nations as the global governance has never functioned as envisaged in its charter; it has been manipulated by the US in many occasions. The UN doesn’t represent the people of the world including the Kurds; it does represent the “states” of the world. The United Nation has a highly undemocratic nature with the power vested only in the hands of certain states. The evidences show that over the course of UN history, the US has had a significant power over the decisions made by the Security Council. Some part of this paper will be focused on some case studies like the Congolese crisis where the UN became “an umbrella for the US policies”. In the Korean War the UN was dominated by the US and most of its troops consisted of Americans. The UN played a forceful role in a way not envisaged in its charter and the operation was totally an American one. The UN lacked ability to take measure to prevent the Darfur crisis. The UN was also responsible for the Rwandan genocide.

As I said earlier, the UN does not represent the people of the world. There are more than 2,000 different languages but there are only around 186 member states in the UN. The term of the United Nations could be replaced with the “United Governments” or “United States”. There are stateless nations in the world who don’t have any representatives in the UN and thus their voice will not be heard and it may render the prospect of peace impossible. For example there are around 40 millions Kurds in the world without a representative in the UN. At the present time there is full-scale war between the Turks and the Kurds in Turkey. Had the Kurds had a voice in the UN, the possibilities of peace in this part of world would have been arisen. Not only the UN hadn’t involved in the Kurdish-Turkish problem, but it fact it has more sided with the Turkey since the Turks have a voice in the UN and are the member of NATO and the US ally.

Moreover the UN stayed silence and did nothing to secure civilians lives during the 2009 civil-war in Sri Lanka. That was unbelievable that once the Sri Lankan forces shelled the hospital where there were only wounded people, the UN condemned the Tamil tiger for using civilians as a shield. The evidences suggest that there was not a single fighter of the Tamil in the hospital on that day. Once the Sri Lankan government saw the UN blaming the Tamil Tigers, they see it as a green light from the UN to commit crime against the humanity and thus, they shelled the same hospital again raising the death toll to an unacceptable level. Had the Tamil or the Kurds had representatives in the UN, things would have been different. Not only the stateless nations are excluded a voice in the UN, the women are also highly under-represented and it might not help to solve the problems that women face globally.

The Security Council has an un-democratic nature and it does not represent the people of the world in a way that an effective global institution should do. The permanent membership of the Security Council reflects the international balance of power. Unlike the 10 non-permanent members these states have the power to veto Council resolutions. During the Cold War, the veto threat paralyzed the Security Council and relegated it to the sidelines of international politics. The P-5 insisted on having individual vetoes over UN Charter amendments since the article 108 provides each permanent member with a trump card that can overrule any decisions that are not in their interests. The right of veto seems unfair and it has been criticised by the 186 member states as inequitable.

The veto has been and remains an obstacle to reform both because of the P-5’s vested interests in preserving power and because no provision in the charter requires them to relinquish this right. Although the United Kingdom, France and Russia are no longer considered major powers, their permanent status with vetoes gives them a substantial voice in international politics. Nevertheless the emerging powers such as Brazil and India are excluded from having an effective role in the international affairs. If veto is a democratic procedure, why it should be given exclusively to a certain numbers of the states and if it is undemocratic, should it be given to new permanent members?

Most of the member states call for equity in the Security Council, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto right of P5. But no progress has been made because there is no consensus about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto. That is true that the council does not reflect the actual distribution of 21 century power, yet reform proposals have never addressed the true imbalance between seats and actual military capacity outside of the Security Council chamber. The only significant reform of the Security Council came to pass in 1965, after two-thirds of all UN member states ratified and all five permanent members of the Security Council approved Resolution 1990, which proposed enlarging the Security Council from 11 to 15 members and the required majority from 7 to 9 votes. The veto power exclusively reserved for the P-5 was left intact.

Historically, the UN’s failure to function in way that a global institution should work has seriously damaged the UN’s credibility. The Korean War from 1950 to 1953 was the most severe test for the United Nation. The UN had already involved itself in the affairs of Korea in 1947, before partition. It had declared that an election should be held for the whole country and that the United Nations would oversee it to ensure that it was fair. In the South Korea, where it was supported by the United States, the UN declared that the elections had been fair. In the Northern Korea, where it was supported by the Soviet, the United Nations declared that the election result was not acceptable since it had not been independently observed by the UN. Following the defiance of the North Korean and the outbreak of war between the two Koreas, sixteen member states would provide troops under a United Nations Joint Command to fight with the South Korean Army. This UN forces was dominated by America and it was commanded even by an American general. The UN defeated the North Korean army and pushed them out of South Korea and even advanced into North Korea. This resulted in a Chinese attack on United Nations troops and then the China managed to push back the United Nations force.

In the Korean War, it was crystal clear that the UN played a forceful role in a way not envisaged in its charter. When Northern Korea invaded South Korea, the US immediately took matter to the Security Council because the Council was able to adopt the American resolution. The UN took a strong action against the aggressor and all the Korean operation was overwhelmingly American. The General Assembly, under the dominant of the US condemned the Republic of China as the aggressor and the US used its dominance to prevent the China’s seat.

Another example of UN’s failure to work in a way it was envisaged in the charter was in Congo. One of the main contributing factors to the Congo crisis was the UN. The UN operation in Congo is portrayed as a classic example of the risk of UN intervention in the civil conflict. That was UN’s largest peacekeeping operation ever, involving 20,000 troops and the logistic support of 30 countries. The UN became a player and lost its mediating role and became an ‘umbrella for the American policies’. The UN was designed to secure the world’s peace, but would the global peace be obtained in this way? The UN officials shared the anti-Soviet worldview and happily collaborated with the Western interest in the Africa. They saw the Soviet as a threat to the global peace and worked hard to end this threat. The UN became “the transmission belt for the American policy” in the Congo crisis. Some of the major problem with UN’s intervention in the Congo was that it set the foundation for the future intervention in other countries affairs. It further polarised the East-West tension and crippled the UN decision-making process for the years to come. It brought the cold war into the middle of Africa where it would spread all over the entire continent. And worst of all, it aborted the Congo’s transition from a colonial state to a democratic system. Some scholars believe that the United Nations became the “umbrella” for the US anti-Communist policy in Congo.

Once the UN took side against the Congo’s democratically elected premier Patrice Lumumba, the East and West were locked in the diplomatic confrontation that crippled the UN ability to maintain international peace and security. The UN lost its designed role which was mediation and it became a de-facto player in the political dynamic of Congo. This action of the UN resulted in withdraw of many African leaders from the UN and withdrew their political supports. That was clear that the US sought to use the UN to push its own policy objectives. Many scholars believe that the UN threw it support behind the Kasavubu and worked to oust Lumumba because the UN officials wanted to thwart the Congo transition to democracy. That was really incredible that the UN general Secretary Dag Hammarskjold flew to Katanga to directly open negotiation with the secessionist leader Tshombe. Once Lumumba saw this he began to oppose the UN presence and had no option but to request for the Soviet’s aid to prevent Katanga’s secession. That was fundamentally illegal when the UN paid for the food of the Congolese Army in order to get credit for Mobutu for paying the soldier their past due salaries. Without the support of the UN Joseph Mobutu would not have been able to seize the power. The Untied Nations is ought to be a neutral institution. But that was far from being neutral when Cordier afforded $ 1million to Mobutu to pay off the Congolese soldiers and keep them loyal to Kasavubu.

Member states of UN play a critical role in the implementation of Security Council resolutions. But the absent of sufficient political will in the Council measures to stop crimes against humanity often simply die in the committee. Tragically, the case of Sudan, and in particular the response to Darfur, illustrates all too well the incapability of the Council. The first Emergency Relief arrived on 2004 already a year after the crisis had erupted. Four months later, the Council adopted Resolution 1556, which demanding the government of Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed militias or face possible sanctions. It also imposed a symbolic arms embargo on “non-governmental entities operating in Darfur.” The resolution lacked a robust enforcement mechanism and the eight major subsequent resolutions have followed this pattern of inefficacy.

Why so many resolutions had so little effect? Council failure was predetermined by the US, UK and other Western powers. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) would help to bring about democratic reforms in Sudan, and its effective implementation is critical to helping achieve peace in Darfur. But instead of implementing the CPA, Security Council members, including the US, neglected it and rushed into an ill-prepared peace talks on Darfur. The Council has demonstrated that it could only concentrate on one issue at a time. The Council did not refocus on the CPA until the middle of 2007, by which point Darfur was in a deeper crisis. UN authorized sanctions against Sudan, established under Resolution 1591, have simply been an empty threat and affirmed Khartoum’s conviction that the Council lacks the political will to take strong actions. Nonetheless The Sanctions Committee has repeatedly delayed or even prevented the publication of reports of the independent Panel of Experts.

The UN lacked both the fund and military support of the wealthy countries. This level of crisis, the killings, rape and displacement in Darfur could have been foreseen and avoided, had the UN interfered. Darfur would just not be in this situation had the UN systems got its act together after Rwanda: their action was too little too late. Sudan received 87 per cent of its major conventional weapons from Russia the Council‘s member and 8 per cent from China. China threatened to use its veto on the Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan.

The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed. The UN Security Council failed to reinforce the small UN peacekeeping force in the country. Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers. One survivor, Specios Kenya Bugoi, described how 4,000 Tutsis took shelter close to Belgian troops hoping to be safe but the troops left and the killings began. The head of the small UN peacekeeping force in Rwanda at the time, Lieutenant General Romeo Dallaire, told the conference that no-one was interested in saving Rwandans. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was the head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, has been criticised for not warnings about the impending genocide. Mr. Annan however, has conceded that he could and should have done more to stop the genocide. But there are some claims mainly from the left organisations that when Dallaire proposed a raid on a weapons stockpile within 36 hours to prevent the arming of Hutu militias, Mr. Annan's office replied promptly, ordering Dallaire not to take action and not to protect his informant. Last year, Annan refused to allow Dallaire to appear before a Belgian hearing because it was not “in the interests of the organisation”. Annan said on May 4: “The failure to prevent the 1994 genocide was local, national, and international, including member-states with important capacity”. In 1994, the UN was warned of the Rwandan Hutu government's impending genocide against the Tutsi minority and three months before it began, yet the UN ordered its “peacekeepers” in the country to do nothing.

The credibility of UN was challenged once more when NATO launched the air campaign in 1999 in Kosovo against the Republic of Yugoslavia without a mandate from the Security Council, since Russia had declared that it would veto such action. The Clinton’s administration violated the UN Charter and international law by using NATO to authorise its air war against Yugoslavia instead of placing the issue before the United Nations. When a widespread human rights violation within a sovereign state requires international intervention, it is only the UN which is entitled to make such a decision. The fear of a possible veto by other Security Council members does not give the US and Britain the right to make decision on their own and invade other countries.

UN’s international police failed to protect minorities during the widespread rioting in Kosovo. This was the biggest security test for the UN in 1999 which failed. Minorities were forced out of their homes as the UN and international community looked on. It was eminently predictable. Only weeks after NATO's bombing campaign, US officials were blaming the UN for their failure to restore peace in Kosovo and the rest of Yugoslavia. The US rejected any UN role in decision-making about military action. But now Washington holds the UN accountable for the messy and violent aftermath of the US-NATO war. Of course the UN is the right organisation to be in charge of the Kosovo situation. Nonetheless it must be granted the money it needs to do the job. Of course, the US should have promoted the UN as the central actor and should have paid its UN dues. But why being the richest and most powerful country in the world should give the US the right to infringe the international law, to discard the UN and invade another country? Does not that show the powerlessness of the United Nations? By 1995, Madeleine Albright called the UN as a tool of American foreign policy. Is not it disgraceful for the UN as the institution of the Global governance?

In the Iraq’s case the US again shifted international decision-making out of the hands of the UN, substituted it with unilateral action of NATO. The interventions of the 1990s saw a concerted effort to weaken and replace the role of the UN in favour of the US. Washington promoted the UN as its legitimizer for its unilateral actions. After 1992-94 periods of escalating failures of international peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, the US continually blamed its own failures on the UN. President Clinton still implies the UN is responsible for the deaths of US Rangers in Somalia during a non-UN authorised, unilateral Pentagon mission in 1993.

In 1996, as the US continued bombing Iraq, Washington stated that it no longer needed UN resolutions to justify its airstrikes. The credibility of the UN was seriously damaged by the failure to agree on a second Security Council resolution, and by the decision of the US and UK to invade Iraq without UN authorisation. The British and American diplomats pointed to the Security Council Resolution 687 of 1991, which required the destruction of the Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction under UN supervision. But the UN threatened that such an action would have serious consequences. Diplomats at UN headquarters have almost unanimously described the debate surrounding the withdrawn resolution before the war in Iraq as “a referendum not on the means of disarming Iraq but on the American use of power.”

The UN Security Council had also refused to endorse the US-UK invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Washington and London hoped to ignore the UN. The UN presence would only discredit the world body. Following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 1483 two months after the war, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan appointed a Special Representative for Iraq and the UN assumed some small responsibilities there. Many critics warned that the UN should not be identified with the illegal war. In August 2003, a massive bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad confirmed the critics' fears. The US intended to keep the UN involved in Iraq in order to legitimise its so called “war on terror”. Despite strong opposition from the UN Staff Council, the new Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, seems to be more pliant to the US and more supportive of greater UN involvement in Iraq.

If the Security Council continues to materially disagree with U.S. foreign policy on critical issues with any frequency, the UN could go into the same direction of its predecessor, the League of Nations. In this, President George W. Bush was on target in his September 2002 address to the General Assembly: “We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our resolutions would be more than wishes. What it really means is that the U.S. administration will never allow international institutions to curb its actions. The future cooperation of the US with the UN would be possible had that the Security Council managed to persuade the United States that acting multilaterally will be in its interest. “The key issue for the council,” as the International Peace Academy’s president David Malone tells us, “is whether it can engage the United States, modulates its exercise of power, and discipline its impulses.” But the fact is that United States now spends more than the rest of the world. This reality will not change until Europeans spend considerably more on defence so that they too have an independent military capacity.

Climate Change is another issue that has framed another failure of the UN. The International Climate Change Conference at December 2009 in Copenhagen and the Kyoto Protocol all failed. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks have been disrupted by a divide between rich and poor countries. Developing nations are asking their industrialised counterparts to reduce their CO2 and to offer financial aid to help poor nations. But developed countries have not made any firm commitments on funding. The emitted gases from industrial activities have been the main cause of a changing climate causing a high level risk of flooding, drought, desertification and extensive effects on Agriculture and Health. The officials said it has been clear that issues of climate change do not bother the industrialized countries. In November 2009, the UN peacekeepers planted nearly 600 trees in a botanical garden in Côte d’Ivoire, one for every person in the world. Blue helmets have already planted nearly 30,000 saplings in 11 peacekeeping missions worldwide, in countries including Timor-Leste, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Georgia and Lebanon. But it should be noted that two million people die every year from causes associated with exposure to smoke from cooking with biomass and coal – and 99 per cent of those deaths occur in developing countries.

All these evidences suggest that the UN has never worked as envisaged in the charter. The UN doesn’t represent the people of the world. It does only represent the “states” of the world. The UN keeps failing to prevent the disasters from happening and it has failed to work as the institution of the global governance. The United Nation has repeatedly failed and its only success is that despite its frequent and continuing failures it still exist and has not gone the same direction its predecessor “The League of Nation” did.

Notes:

1. A. David, L. Lorna & R. John (2004), International Organisation in World Politics. Palgrave McMillan.

2. B. John, S. Steve & O. Patricia (2008), The Globalisation of World Politics. Oxford University Press.

3. C. Carole J.L (1993), The Cold War Comes to Africa: Cordier and the 1960 Congo Crisis.

4. C. Peter (1991), World Politics Since 1945. Sixth Edition. Longman Publication.

5. W. Thomas G (2003), The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform. Washington University Press.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq/political-issues-in-iraq/un-role-in-iraq.html

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=32088&Cr=climate&Cr1=

http://www.enoughproject.org/publications/irresolution-un-security-council-darfur

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/24/atestcasefortheun

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2004/07/26/kosovo-failure-nato-un-protect-minorities

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1939-cn.htm