Under the circumstances stated in the first section of this article, where by the international arena is transitioning from a unipolar to multipolar system, the United Nations Organization is condemned to the role of a bystander – a more or less impartial observer of the power struggle among its leading members – and potentially as a forum for the deposition of demands of the powerful and the grievances of the weak, but mainly a forum for international public relations or “public diplomacy” in dialogue with international civil society.

The reasons for this imposed “passivity” are structural. In its present form, the UN Charter cannot serve as blueprint, or organizational framework, for the international rule of law and global peace. The Charter is based on the power balance of a bygone era. The entire system of enforcement of international law embodied in the provisions on collective security, the central piece of the Charter, is built around the privileges of the most powerful countries of 1945, at the expense of all other member states. The over-representation of the Western world – with three out of five permanent seats in the Council – makes this more than evident. It also explains the increasing legitimacy problem of the world organization vis-à-vis the vast majority of member states. Thus, in the present transitory phase, the UN cannot in any way guarantee an “orderly transition” from unipolarity to multipolarity, and for two distinct reasons:

(1) Realistically, the Charter cannot be adapted to the newly emerging realities because this would, according to Article 108, require the consent of the powers of 1945. Frankly, why would countries that lost their global status give up a privilege that represents that very status? This is indeed the “vicious circle” of the veto that was written into the Charter by its founders. Thus, the Security Council architecture – with the institution of permanent membership in its present form – cannot accommodate changes in the power balance, meaning the inclusion of new member states from Africa, Latin America, or the Muslim world. Under these conditions, enlargement of the Security Council is not a realistic option because this would oblige the existing permanent members to share their special privilege with other countries and other regions.

http://thenewturkey.org/the-united-nations-in-an-age-of-transition-i-world-order-and-realpolitik/

(2) As regards our initial question about a stable political system, the United Nations cannot be the guarantor of a rule-based global order because it embodies the supremacy of power over law. This is obvious if one reads not only the idealistic phrases of the Preamble, but also the specific procedural rules of the Charter. The fine print of legal texts is often overlooked, which creates false expectations and illusions about the role an organization can actually play. This is particularly so with the UN Charter. The P5 enjoy de facto immunity for their behavior. The prohibition of the unilateral use, or threat of the use, of force (Article 2[4] of the Charter), including wars of aggression, does effectively not apply where the actions of permanent members are concerned, and for two interconnected reasons: (a) Those countries can veto any condemnation or coercive action by the Council against themselves and their allies. (b) According to the wording of Article 27(3) of the Charter, they are not obliged to abstain from voting in cases where they are themselves party to a dispute (e.g. the aggressor). Though the latter provision applies to all members of the Council, in connection with the veto it becomes a veritable tool of “power politics without regrets.” In view of the effective lifting of legal constraints on the use of force by the most powerful actors, one might even say that the UN Charter incentivizes such behavior, allowing the great powers to hide behind lofty principles while actually pursuing a policy of national interests.

The Security Council is not a realistic option because this would oblige the existing permanent members to share their special privilege with other countries and other regions.

Thus, when using its power to defend its dominant position, in whichever region of the globe, a hegemonial power, together with its allies, does not need to address any concerns about the legitimacy of its actions. Under UN rules, it cannot be condemned – or reigned in – under any circumstances whatsoever. Unhindered by legal constraints, such a country will indeed feel encouraged to pursue an agenda of power politics whenever its interests so dictate. This is nothing new, however. Since the colonial era, the great powers have acted according to the maxim of divide and impera (divide and rule). This has been particularly obvious in the policies concerning Palestine since the period of the British Mandate, but also concerning the Kurdish issue –­ whether secret or open – since the 1970s, or, more recently, in the positions taken concerning the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. To a considerable extent, those upheavals were triggered by the United States’ illegal military intervention in Iraq in 2003.

Since the colonial era, the great powers have acted according to the maxim of divide and impera (divide and rule). This has been particularly obvious in the policies concerning Palestine since the period of the British Mandate, but also concerning the Kurdish issue –­ whether secret or open – since the 1970s, or, more recently, in the positions taken concerning the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

Under these geopolitical circumstances, the only chance for the United Nations to regain its relevance – after the stalled reform efforts of the 1990s, shortly after the end of the Cold War – would be a development not primarily at the level of norms and procedures, but in the world of realpolitik. Only a change in the global power constellation towards a genuine multipolar order will enable emerging powers on all continents to convince the current hegemon – and also the existing P5 – that the political and economic price for insisting on a perpetuation of their statutory privileges in the UN will ultimately be too high, and that consent to a reform of decision-making rules will better serve their national interests in the long term. Normative declarations or appeals before a change in the power constellation will only have a marginal effect.

In the meantime, the risk of a collapse of the existing fragile order, indeed a system of unenforceable rules, is real – with all that this entails for zones of geopolitical tension where the assertion of power by a defensive hegemon may exacerbate conflicts and trigger a wider confrontation on a global scale, condemning the United Nations Organization to the role of a mere bystander.

Russia cast its tenth veto on Syria in the U.N. Security Council on Thursday. This veto prevents the renewal of the mandate for a mission that investigates the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

The mandate of Joint Investigation Mechanisms (JIM)- an investigation by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) – unanimously created by the 15-member U.N. Security Council in 2015 and renewed for another year in 2016 is due to expire on Friday.

At the end of October, the UN mechanism decided that forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were responsible for a chemical attack on April 4 in northwestern Syria.

The resolution prepared by the US needed nine votes in favor and no vetoes by the UN Security Council permanent members – United States, France, Russia, Britain or China – in order to be adopted.

The US draft text received 11 votes in favor, while Russia and Bolivia voted against and China and Egypt abstained.

The permanent representatives of the United States and Russia mutually accused each other. The US Permanent Representative to the UN, Nikki Haley, accused Russia of “killing the UN mechanism” by vetoing a draft that obtained the vote of 11 members in the council.

“By eliminating our ability to identify the attackers, Russia has undermined our ability to deter future attacks,” Nikki Haley, US envoy to the UN said in a statement. “The message to anyone listening is clear: in effect, Russia accepts the use of chemical weapons in Syria.”

Russia’s UN ambassador, Vasily Nebenzia, claimed that the US draft was unbalanced and unrealistic.

“We need a robust, professional mechanism that will help to prevent the proliferation of the threat of chemical terrorism in the region and you need a puppet-like structure to manipulate public opinion,” Nebenzia said.

Russia backs Assad in the world body, also granting him military support with an extensive air campaign and ground forces in Syria.

Although Russia had agreed to the creation of the JIM, it has consistently questioned its conclusions, which also stated that the Syrian government used chlorine as a weapon several on several occasions.

The Syrian government had agreed in 2013 to destroy its chemical weapons in hand after an agreement mediated by Russia and the United States. The UN confirmed that chemical weapons were destroyed.

*This report was written by Suna Nur Sarıhan. 

In the public realm, order, as condition of peace, requires the rule of law, a set of norms the enforcement of which is guaranteed – domestically – by the authority of the state with its monopoly of force (as defined by Max Weber) and on the basis of a separation of powers. If this system collapses, one may speak of a “failed state,” a situation of anarchy, or lawlessness, where everyone is at the mercy of the other and the law of force has replaced the force of law.

No such system of order exists yet internationally, in relations between sovereign states. This has been true for the post-World War I era of the League of Nations as well as for the post-World War II period of the United Nations Organization. Internationally, the rule of law means a universal and consistent system of norms regulating relations between states, but also determining domestic state behavior in regard to treaty obligations. Those legal norms, agreed-upon among UN member states, exist. However, the United Nations Charter does not provide the adequate organizational framework for their implementation. We shall explain in more detail why this is the case.

The United Nations Charter does not provide the adequate organizational framework for their implementation.

In the absence of efficient mechanisms of enforcement, what has, all through history, guaranteed order in relations between states is a balance of power between the most influential actors. This means interaction between states on the basis of the pursuit of mutually accepted self-interest. The solemn proclamations of Purposes and Principles in the UN Charter notwithstanding, the pursuit of national interests on the basis of mutuality has been the maxim of realpolitik also in the framework of the United Nations. In terms of military power, this has meant “mutual deterrence,” which implies the fear of disadvantage (in the extreme case, destruction of the state) in the case of hostile action against another state.

In the period of the Cold War, this particularly related to the nuclear capacity of the two superpowers. More than the norms of international law, it may have been the fear of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD) that preserved peace at the global level. As disillusioning as this may be: as long as legal principles and rules – such as the prohibition of the use of force – cannot be universally and consistently enforced, the mechanisms of realpolitik, as expressed in the interest-based concept of deterrence, are the only efficient precautions against all-out war – and, thus, also for a stable, though precarious, world order.

In the era after World War II, the victorious powers agreed to organize international relations in the spirit of equal cooperation among themselves – and themselves alone.

In the era after World War II, the victorious powers agreed to organize international relations in the spirit of equal cooperation among themselves – and themselves alone. This is the reason for the special privileges of the P5, the five permanent members on the Security Council (United States, Soviet Union [now Russia], China, United Kingdom, France). In the initial phase, this meant that an, albeit fragile, balance of power among those states guaranteed world order. Those five countries – the sponsoring governments of the UN (except France) – saw themselves as the enforcers of the rule of law and, thus, international peace, while effectively putting themselves above the law by means of their veto right (enshrined in Article 27[3] of the UN Charter).

Within a few years after the organization’s founding, the multipolar constellation among the P5 evolved towards a bipolar struggle between the then two nuclear powers, the USA and the Soviet Union (USSR) (the latter having acquired nuclear capacity in 1949). As a result of this development, the United Nations was effectively sidelined – indeed marginalized – and became the stage for the global power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union. Because of the mutual blockage due to the US and Soviet veto, the Security Council was paralyzed. What prevented World War III was indeed deterrence, i. e. each antagonist’s interest in self-preservation. This was the era of proxy wars along the fault lines of the East-West Conflict – in its direct geographical and wider ideological and geopolitical meaning. The rivalry triggered catastrophic domestic and regional conflicts such as those in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, but did not result in a direct confrontation between the two superpowers.

What prevented World War III was indeed deterrence, i. e. each antagonist’s interest in self-preservation. This was the era of proxy wars along the fault lines of the East-West Conflict.

The collapse of the Soviet empire after 1989, with the demise of the USSR in 1991, made – for around two decades – the United States the sole hegemon. The end of bipolarity indeed signaled the collapse of the balance of power at the global level. In the resulting unipolar constellation, there existed no checks and balances restraining the behavior of the most powerful global actor – neither those ensured by legal mechanisms and procedures of the UN nor those resulting from the counterweight of other sovereign states. As a consequence, the international community had to cope with the arrogant assertion of interests by the only remaining superpower.

All through history, hegemons have tried to “eternalize” their privileged position. The United States has pursued such an agenda through unilateral uses of force, which it could carry out without fear of the law and without worrying about repercussions in terms of realpolitik. The wars of aggression since the late 1990s, with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as the most striking example, are clear evidence of this.

In a short period after 1990, the only superpower was able to use the Security Council for its own strategic purposes. The loss of the power balance among the P5, around which the world organization was originally built, made this possible. The resolutions that preceded the Gulf War of 1991 are the most obvious example. However, the much-praised unanimity among the permanent members was not only short-lived, but an illusion from the outset. It did not reflect an alliance by conviction, but it was due to their military, economic and political weakness at the time that neither Russia nor China raised objections in the Council. The strategic imbalance was also obvious in another respect. While, in the case of the war against Iraq in 1991, the justification was multilateral (by means of Council resolutions), the action, i.e. the implementation of the resolutions, was effectively unilateral, solely determined by the United States and her allies.

Although later, after the Kosovo war of 1999, the consent of the two non-Western permanent members was not as easy to obtain as in the initial decade after the end of the Cold War, the continuing unipolar constellation made the predicament of the UN even worse. Not anymore counting on the endorsement of its actions by the Council, the most powerful member state felt no need even for a semblance of legality in its unilateral use of force against Iraq in 2003.

Illegal “humanitarian” interventions, carried out in the name of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, had profoundly negative results on the international order in several major respects:

1. They triggered a process of destabilization in major global regions, in particular in the Middle East and North Africa. The resulting political vacuum in countries such as Iraq and Libya was quickly filled by groups acting in the name of a so-called “Islamic State,” and the chain of destabilizing events – leading to widespread state failure in the Middle East – has now even reached the gates of Europe, with the refugee crisis threatening political stability in core countries of the European Union and endangering the cohesion of the Union itself.
2. The lawlessness of the dominant country and its allies in their international behavior has brought about a deep demoralization and disillusionment about the policy of double standards within the global community. Why should a state respect the rules if what ultimately counts is overwhelming power?
3. An unintended consequence (under the perspective of the dominant power) has been the increasing resistance against this hegemonial agenda in geopolitically sensitive regions. The leading power is more and more confronted with the effects of “imperial overstretch” (to use the words of Paul Kennedy), which unavoidably means an ever more unstable global order. Even the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential geopolitical strategists of the United States, began to address the need for a “global realignment” that would require a redefinition of the role of the United States as strategic partner of China and Russia.
4. All of these developments contributed, at different levels, to the gradual development of a new multipolar balance of power, with China – because of its enormous economic weight – as one of the main challengers of US hegemony. New regional groupings of states (such as the African Union, the Eurasian Union or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and global forums (such as BRICS or the G-20) may become the cornerstones of this emerging global architecture.

The transition from unipolarity to multipolarity will bring a prolonged period of instability and regional proxy wars, with the threat of a major global confrontation. The risk of a collapse of world order cannot be entirely excluded as long as the rules-based system of international relations, represented by the United Nations, is not functioning efficiently and international politics is essentially based on the pursuit of national interests, not on international law. If, in this transitory phase, the fate of the world is indeed left to an unrestrained power struggle between sovereign states (regionally as well as globally), the so-called “Thucydides trap” is not an improbable scenario. Comparing the present constellation between the United States and China to the rivalry between Athens and Sparta that led to the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), Graham Allison, in his new book “Destined for War,” has convincingly explained that fear of an emerging competitor may cause the dominant power to resort to war to preserve its supremacy.

It is about the right time to act in order to reform the United Nations instead of talking about reforming the UN, as has been the case since the mid-1990s. It is now common knowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong about the UN which was supposed to act as the trustee of peace, security, better conditions of living, and cooperation in the world after the Second World War. However, the UN system, with its vast body of institutional machinery and decision-making apparatus combined with a limited budget, has, although at a modest level, managed to better-off the world on a host of “soft” issues of international politics, ranging from codifying international law through support for refugees to educational and medical assistance to some countries in the Third World. Yet, on “hard” matters of international politics, such as war, aggression, militarization, and political coercion, the UN performance could at best be described as “disappointing”.

Indeed, if one looks into the UN through the window of the Security Council, the body entrusted with the task of ensuring international peace and security by virtue of its unlimited powers of decision-making and coercion, one is almost obliged to conceive this organization as an unpleasant leftover from the Cold War. Sadly, this “world body” no longer reflects the true aspirations of the community of nations and societies, especially in Asia and Africa. Under the silence gaze of the UN, many of these societies are beset by international and internecine wars, direct and indirect aggression from outside, poverty, widespread disease, armaments build-ups, war crimes and crimes against humanity, non-representative oppressive regimes, and severe violations of human rights.

The UN has lost its credibility as humanity’s most trusted guardian against aggression and oppression.

The UN has lost its credibility as humanity’s most trusted guardian against aggression and oppression. The permanent members in the Security Council have their own individual agenda, which is, more often than not, set by the dictates of national interests and geopolitical rivalries with other global and/or regional actors. Concerns for international law and justice, alas, play only a negligible role for these actors as we have seen, for instance, in the entire episode of the Palestinian tragedy and the deafening silence in the face of the killing fields of Assad’s Syria since 2011.

Of course, amending the Charter is a herculean task which, inter alia, explains why the UN reforms have not materialized after the Cold War. Indeed, according to Article 108 of the UN Charter, “Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” This is another way of saying that; each and every permanent member of the Council is, to the disappointment of the world community, legally capable of sabotaging the reform of the UN. However, this is a task from which not even permanent members can escape for long without harming their reputation and credibility.

The reforms should begin with the lifting of the veto privilege for permanent members.

The reforms should begin with the lifting of the veto privilege for permanent members. Besides, a reshuffling of the UN Security Council should, at least, involve the addition of new (permanent) members. In addition to considering states with a huge population and economic clout, as in the case of India and Brazil, there needs to be representation in regards to the Muslim world that consists of 1.7 billion people. Two possible formulas may be offered for this purpose: first, a member state of the Islamic Cooperation Organization (ICO) may be assigned this task by this body on rotating principle; second, the ICO may confer this task to a respected Muslim statesman on an agenda set by the same.

In the likelihood of a comprehensive amendment of the UN Charter, the powers of the General Assembly ought to be enhanced so that this, most representative of UN bodies, has greater say in matters of war, peace and aggression. All the UN member states are also members of the General Assembly and have equal weight based on the principle of one state-one vote. The debates in the Assembly are conducted in the open which suggests that bargaining behind closed doors and elements of coercion by strong actors are less plausible in this organ compared to the Security Council in which only 10 provisional members are represented in the face of five permanent members with veto powers. By virtue of reforms, the veto power in the Security Council ought to be lifted considering that a veto cast by a permanent member against the wishes of the rest-14 on a proposed resolution, spoils the whole process. The veto is a sure recipe for deadlocks and stagnation in the Security Council.

The reforms should also ensure that the UN Security Council decisions imposing sanctions or military enforcement action against an allegedly peace-violating state ought to be submitted to the Assembly in order to ensure that the motion gets the consent of the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority. This is a must in order that the Council (or, rather, some permanent members) is not accused of adopting a politically-motivated posture intended to serve a particular foreign policy objective. As a representative and transparent body, the seal of approval by the Assembly is almost certain to convince the world public opinion that a given “effective” Security Council resolution is legally sound, legitimate and fair. Another measure of caution against politically-motivated Security Council resolutions should be the judicial review of the (binding) Council resolutions by the International Court of Justice. If a particular motion, when put into action, is, for instance, likely to constitute a breach of the fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter (1945) or lead to crimes against humanity, it should be declared null and void by the Court.

The reform of the UN should be deemed incomplete without touching on the authority of the Economic and Social Council.

The reform of the UN should be deemed incomplete without touching on the authority of the Economic and Social Council, the UN body that is tasked to deal with economic and social issues as well as with human rights. This representative body of 54 states, elected by the General Assembly, lacks the requisite binding authority, although poverty, global inequality and human rights count as the most pressing global problems hindering peace. Therefore, this organ ought to be given extra powers so that it issues binding legislation and decisions in the said key areas.

We should not fail to note that the Muslim world has become a prime victim of the UN security system in the aftermath of the Cold War. The hopes for a much safer world have unfortunately been dashed by the US and some other permanent members bent on subjugating and controlling the riches and political potentiality of the Muslim world by the misuse of the Security Council. The Security Council has thus become another brick in the wall of the geopolitical exclusion of the Muslim world. This has led me to call this bitter contradiction between the expected role of the UN and the reality of imperial subjugation, from global security to global hegemony^*, in reference to the UN Security Council treatment of the Muslim world since the 1990s.

All in all, the UN system needs to undergo a comprehensive overhaul in order to make it more workable and beneficial for humanity. The permanent members of the Council should be part of the solution, and not the problem. If they stubbornly stick to their previous position, they are likely to find that the UN has become a political irrelevancy for the rest of the world community in the years to come.

*This is actually the title of my latest book, in which I investigate the troubled relationship between the Muslim world and the UN security system particularly after the Cold War, Küresel Güvenlikten Küresel Tahakküme: BM Güvenlik Sistemi ve İslam Dünyası, (Küre, 2016).

During her time at the UN General Assembly, British Prime Minister Theresa May urged for UN reform.

The Prime Minister threatened to hold back 30 percent of her country’s UN contributions unless the world body undertakes relevant reform.

“If this system that we have created is found to no longer be capable of meeting the challenges of our time, then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of our peoples,” May said before the General Assembly in New York.

The UK is the second largest UN funder and May stated that the withheld funds will be dispersed “only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.”

“Despite our best efforts, we are not succeeding. We must do more,” she said, urging for reform.

May praised the UN-centric international system, calling it “the amplifying force that allows countries to cooperate and live up to these standards in words, spirit and deed.”

However, in pointing out its shortcomings, May pointed her finger to Russia when she called out a Security Council member who she said has used its veto power as many times in the past five years as during the second half of the Cold War.

“In so doing, they have prevented action against a despicable regime that has murdered its people with chemical weapons,” she said. “As a result, in Syria, the United Nations has been blocked.”

No, Theresa

During her stay at New York, Theresa May also raised the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapon program with President Trump.

The US President refused to share with world leaders his final decision on whether to scrap an international agreement made with Iran on its nuclear program, Rex Tillerson told reporters on Wednesday.

When asked by British PM to share his decision on the deal with Tehran, the US President accordingly “said no.”

Secretary Tillerson looked surprised when a reporter informed him that the President had already told the press that he had arrived at a final decision, signaling the disconnect between the head of state and a top diplomat – a problem the Trump administration has faced since the beginning of the President’s tenure.

“I didn’t know he was going to say he made a decision,” Tillerson said. “I knew he had, but I didn’t known he was going to say he had.”

Tillerson held the press briefing following a meeting with the parties to the deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Secretary Tillerson further conceded that reports from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “continue to confirm that Iran is in technical compliance with the agreement.”

He added that however in the broader context, “the aspirations” of the deal had not been met.

During his first UN address as President, Trump unleashed a stern rebuke of Iran, calling it a “rogue regime” and that the nuclear deal was “an embarrassment to the United States.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani retaliated during his address at the General Assembly on Wednesday by calling Trump a “rogue newcomer to the world of politics,” without naming him.