Can We Really Find Principles In Our International Affairs?
Principles Defeat Politics at the U.N.
By JIMMY CARTER, ÓSCAR ARIAS, KIM DAE JUNG, SHIRIN EBADI and DESMOND TUTU
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I have not had a penchant for seeing the United Nations as an inherently evil organization. However, since the UN has little to no real power without the active support of the member nations, especially the "super powers" and heavily industrialized/militarized nations, there is an inherent impotence that comes with any action the UN seems to take. Additionally, since the UN itself seems to ignore most of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and lacks the power to enforce the parts of the Declaration it doesn't ignore, there isn't much clout left at the UN. Add to those dynamics the fact that the UN, like so many other governmental and international organizations, is racked with scandals that demonstrate a lack of real management oversight, then we see that it is not just the UN Commission on Human Rights that needs reform, but the entire Charter of the UN needs to change.
The UN needs to have more authority to impose sanctions and actions against those countries that commit heinous acts against humanity. The UN needs to be able to react to crisis situations, like those we have seen in Rwanda, Darfur, Myanmar and elsewhere. The world needs an international body that can isolate governments that are committing atrocities, gross infringements of human rights, provide limited access to external observation, etc. The problem is that the UN is dominanted by a policy that gives a handful of nations veto authority over international security issues... and human rights issues are not often viewed or treated as international security issues.
Before taking the issue of domination further, we have to acknowledge that there is a delicate balance between internal sovereignty, an inherent right of a nation, and international status. A free world, grounded on a foundation of human rights, must allow internal sovereignty and the right for people of a nation to direct their own destiny. However, there is a difference between internal sovereignty and totalitarianism that so restricts the rights of citizens that freedom of ideas, education, religion, speech, press, political participation, protest, and a fair process of law.
China, the former Soviet Union, the current state of Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom have all used sovereignty as the basis for not complying with UN actions, sanctions and terms of the UN Charter. Since the bulk of financing for the UN comes from the top of the list of industrialized nations, and there is essentially a stranglehold on any Security Council votes by the five nations, there isn't much the UN can do in its current state.
The ideal embodied in this compromise is admirable, but it lacks teeth because the very operation of the UN remains hogtied by the Charter that was created just after World War II and has not been dramatically altered since its ratification. The world has changed drastically since the Charter was ratified and accepted. The idea of the UN, first proposed as the League of Nations and subsequently formed in its current manifestation, is commendable. But now it is time for the world to broaden the role of the UN to assert world justice in international affairs.
The current status of the World Court is one of a laughing matter. The Court is lopsided, inconsistent and unprincipled. The rules of the Court are not based on universally applicable principles. There are biases and agendas on the World Court bench. The authority of the Court is often ignored, and its power to enforce its rulings is severely limited.
The UN, and all of its agencies and authorities, is often ignored by the very powers that were the impetus for its formation. In my view, unless the UN Charter itself is revamped and the authority of the UN is expanded to govern international affairs more effectuively, enforce human rights unilaterally, but still respect internal sovereignty in full, the UN is doomed to become a failed legacy.
This is not a statement of advocacy for a new world order. I do not advocate any country surrender its own affairs exclusively to a World Court or an international government. However, I do advocate for the world to have some say on matters where basic human rights, liberties and freedoms are infringed, abridged or abrogated. When human rights are so disregarded that lives are at stake, the UN and the international community should have some authority (note: authority, not rights) to act to cause these actions to cease and desist.
However, the burden for doing so ought to be shared across the board. But who am I kidding. The United States government would never agree to such an appraoch because it would mean that the actions taken by such despots as currently hold office would have to answer for actions taken at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan prisons and in the secret rendition of prisoners. The current crop of US politicians are so convinced in their own version of "manifest destiny" that they cannot see when the government has led us astray.
Unfortunately, many of these international human rights organizations are not operating according to a universally accepted set of principles. Even one of the organizations I respect, Amnesty International, has demonstrated a propensity to categorize some events in an overblown manner. Without an agreed upon, and fully enforceable, code of universal principles, there is no way to make the proposal work.
Unless the improvement is an effective declaration of first principles, then there is no improvement. We are essentailly wasting our time and spinning our wheels. We should dissolve the UN and allow the "old ways" of resolving international issues to come back into play. Of course, the old ways involved imperialism, colonialism and warfare, so it would be better to resolve the issues and strengthen the bonds of the UN by setting forth real principles and acting in a genuinely meaningful manner.
But if we collectively feel ready for yet another disastrous world war that might lead to our complete and utter destruction, let me know a day or two ahead of time so I can go to confession.
By JIMMY CARTER, ÓSCAR ARIAS, KIM DAE JUNG, SHIRIN EBADI and DESMOND TUTU
In the global struggle for the advancement of human rights, the United Nations has reached a defining moment. The president of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden, has led five months of negotiations to develop a proposal to reform the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Although the commission has accomplished many things, including the adoption of human rights standards, treaties and fact-finding mechanisms that measure the performance of governments, it has become more of a political battleground than a meaningful force for protecting victims of human rights violations, and it must be reformed.
Last year, Secretary General Kofi Annan boldly proposed that the United Nations replace the commission with a new more elevated and effective body. His visionary proposal started a very creative process through which governments have thoroughly examined and debated the features of a new body that a large majority could embrace. Mr. Eliasson has now produced a draft resolution with many positive elements that has gained the support of the vast majority of the membership of the United Nations.
Not being a conspiracy theorist, I have not had a penchant for seeing the United Nations as an inherently evil organization. However, since the UN has little to no real power without the active support of the member nations, especially the "super powers" and heavily industrialized/militarized nations, there is an inherent impotence that comes with any action the UN seems to take. Additionally, since the UN itself seems to ignore most of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and lacks the power to enforce the parts of the Declaration it doesn't ignore, there isn't much clout left at the UN. Add to those dynamics the fact that the UN, like so many other governmental and international organizations, is racked with scandals that demonstrate a lack of real management oversight, then we see that it is not just the UN Commission on Human Rights that needs reform, but the entire Charter of the UN needs to change.
The UN needs to have more authority to impose sanctions and actions against those countries that commit heinous acts against humanity. The UN needs to be able to react to crisis situations, like those we have seen in Rwanda, Darfur, Myanmar and elsewhere. The world needs an international body that can isolate governments that are committing atrocities, gross infringements of human rights, provide limited access to external observation, etc. The problem is that the UN is dominanted by a policy that gives a handful of nations veto authority over international security issues... and human rights issues are not often viewed or treated as international security issues.
Before taking the issue of domination further, we have to acknowledge that there is a delicate balance between internal sovereignty, an inherent right of a nation, and international status. A free world, grounded on a foundation of human rights, must allow internal sovereignty and the right for people of a nation to direct their own destiny. However, there is a difference between internal sovereignty and totalitarianism that so restricts the rights of citizens that freedom of ideas, education, religion, speech, press, political participation, protest, and a fair process of law.
China, the former Soviet Union, the current state of Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom have all used sovereignty as the basis for not complying with UN actions, sanctions and terms of the UN Charter. Since the bulk of financing for the UN comes from the top of the list of industrialized nations, and there is essentially a stranglehold on any Security Council votes by the five nations, there isn't much the UN can do in its current state.
Some have asserted that the proposal is just a weak compromise. We challenge this claim.
The new council creates new expectations that members will uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, fully cooperate with the council, and undergo additional scrutiny through a peer review. Most significantly, a member that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights can be suspended from the body.
The ideal embodied in this compromise is admirable, but it lacks teeth because the very operation of the UN remains hogtied by the Charter that was created just after World War II and has not been dramatically altered since its ratification. The world has changed drastically since the Charter was ratified and accepted. The idea of the UN, first proposed as the League of Nations and subsequently formed in its current manifestation, is commendable. But now it is time for the world to broaden the role of the UN to assert world justice in international affairs.
The current status of the World Court is one of a laughing matter. The Court is lopsided, inconsistent and unprincipled. The rules of the Court are not based on universally applicable principles. There are biases and agendas on the World Court bench. The authority of the Court is often ignored, and its power to enforce its rulings is severely limited.
The UN, and all of its agencies and authorities, is often ignored by the very powers that were the impetus for its formation. In my view, unless the UN Charter itself is revamped and the authority of the UN is expanded to govern international affairs more effectuively, enforce human rights unilaterally, but still respect internal sovereignty in full, the UN is doomed to become a failed legacy.
This is not a statement of advocacy for a new world order. I do not advocate any country surrender its own affairs exclusively to a World Court or an international government. However, I do advocate for the world to have some say on matters where basic human rights, liberties and freedoms are infringed, abridged or abrogated. When human rights are so disregarded that lives are at stake, the UN and the international community should have some authority (note: authority, not rights) to act to cause these actions to cease and desist.
However, the burden for doing so ought to be shared across the board. But who am I kidding. The United States government would never agree to such an appraoch because it would mean that the actions taken by such despots as currently hold office would have to answer for actions taken at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan prisons and in the secret rendition of prisoners. The current crop of US politicians are so convinced in their own version of "manifest destiny" that they cannot see when the government has led us astray.
The council includes a new requirement that members be approved by a majority of the General Assembly — or 96 countries — rather than simply being appointed by their regional groups. With these new procedures and the articulation for the first time of standards for membership, we believe the new body will be led by countries with a greater commitment to human rights.
Instead of having one highly politicized meeting per year, the council will meet throughout the year so that it can address urgent human rights issues in a timely way. This will create a more regularized, constructive and professional process. The politics and double standards of the existing commission will be redressed by providing for periodic review of the human rights records of all 191 members, including the most powerful.
In addition, the proposal ensures robust participation by human rights organizations and activists in the deliberations and secures the system of special rapporteurs and other fact-finding mechanisms — the best feature of the commission.
Unfortunately, many of these international human rights organizations are not operating according to a universally accepted set of principles. Even one of the organizations I respect, Amnesty International, has demonstrated a propensity to categorize some events in an overblown manner. Without an agreed upon, and fully enforceable, code of universal principles, there is no way to make the proposal work.
The draft before United Nations members represents a very significant and meaningful improvement over the existing commission, and to reopen negotiations would put at risk these gains and give those who would prefer a weaker system another opportunity to do mischief. This risks reintroducing very damaging proposals, like giving politically motivated member states control and oversight of the high commissioner for human rights, now an independent office and important voice for victims; new restrictions on special rapporteurs, nongovernmental organizations and news media; elimination or new high thresholds for passing country resolutions, and so forth.
Unless the improvement is an effective declaration of first principles, then there is no improvement. We are essentailly wasting our time and spinning our wheels. We should dissolve the UN and allow the "old ways" of resolving international issues to come back into play. Of course, the old ways involved imperialism, colonialism and warfare, so it would be better to resolve the issues and strengthen the bonds of the UN by setting forth real principles and acting in a genuinely meaningful manner.
But if we collectively feel ready for yet another disastrous world war that might lead to our complete and utter destruction, let me know a day or two ahead of time so I can go to confession.
posted by Jim Downey at 11:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home