UN is a failure, here’s why.

UN is a failure in the way it was built and in the way it is dealing with conflicts.

UN Security assembly, the permanent five, a “vetocracy”.

When I was a child, school taught me that five members of the security council were permanent. They are sitting there because they have “won” World War Two. If one member-state of the security council disagreed, it had veto power. It means that the permanent member can stop the adoption of any “substantive” draft Council resolution, regardless of the level of international support for the draft. School (and life itself) also taught me that it is not very democratic to have one voice against all the others.

The five permanent members of the security council constitutes just another set for adversity between, but not exclusively, France, the UK, the USA on one side, and China and Russia on the other.

93292-004-F6B14946.jpg
The Security Council meet at the United Nations’ headquarters in New York City, 2005. Jim Watson-AFP/Getty Images

 

A recent example was the vetoing from China and Russia against a draft resolution that condemned the state of Syria. (05/22/2014). Russia is fully and militarily supporting the Syrian government since September 2015.

World war two has not ended a very long time ago, but in a few dozens of years, when the politics and power dynamics will be completely altered, the position of five permanent members will be understandably and inevitably challenged. In 2055, 110 years after the end of WW2, how much “the winners” of WW2 will still matter to new generations? How logical will it sound? And more practically, how many countries will want to have their own place among “the permanents”?

The permanent members existence is a denial of democracy.

UN patches up conflicts, doesn’t really stop them or prevent them. 

UNIFIL, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, is the example I can relate to. UNIFIL deployed in Lebanon in 1978 to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon which Israel had invaded 5 days prior. Its goals are to restore “international peace and security” and help the government of Lebanon restore its effective authority in the area.
UNIFIL is still active, it has witnessed many Israeli invasions, and worse, their compound has been directly bombed by the “Israeli Defense Forces” in the sad massacre of Qana in 1996.
On April 18 1996, the IDF bombed a UN compound where civilians had taken refuge amid heavy fighting between IDF and Hezbollah, during the Israeli Operation “Grapes of Wrath”. A UN investigation found that it was unlikely that Israeli shelling was a procedural or a technical error; an Israeli drone was spying on the compound before the shelling. More than 800 people were taking refuge in the compound, 106 civilians died in 17 minutes of constant shelling. Two thirds of the shells were equipped with proximity fuses, meaning that the weapon explode above the ground, to kill more.

UNIFIL_pic_1
French peacekeepers of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) take part in a military parade to mark Bastille Day in the French UNIFIL base in Tiri village, southern Lebanon,14 July 2010. (Photo: REUTERS – Ali Hashisho)

Israel was never really punished, despite a decision from the General Assembly stating that Israel should be the one paying for the $1.7 million needed to repair the compound. They voted every year until 2003 with the same pattern, one-third for, one-third abstaining and two voices against belonging to Israel and USA.

UN General Assembly vote.

If you ever wondered why we see so many resolutions but no real actions, its explanation is simple.

The UN General Assembly is democratic, where one state equals one vote. They could pass resolutions with a simple majority or with two-thirds from the member’s states present and voting. Two thirds are required when they are dealing with “important questions”, i.e. the matters that deal with international peace and security and UN internal matters. But resolutions are generally non-binding, meaning they have no real legal power and consequences. A resolution is really just a piece of paper. The real power lies within the Security Council, where “vetocracy” and political adversity reigns.

Questionable morality and impartiality. 

UN wish of impartiality is understandable, but it usually ends in a moral and political fiasco. Impartiality is often an obstacle against action.

In Syria, the UN asks the green light from the Syrian regime to deliver basic humanitarian aid. Despite the regime almost constant refusal to allow the delivery of aid, a UN official said it would be too dangerous to deliver aid without the government consent, reported the Washington Post.
But how can the UN ask for the consent of the party responsible for so many besieged areas in Syria?

In a letter addressed to Stephen O’Brien, the UN undersecretary for humanitarian affairs, 112 Syrian civil society activists accused the agency of complicity in government-imposed blockades that violate the laws of war. The activists wrote that international law and that a 2014 UN Security council resolution oblige all warring parties not to disrupt the delivery of humanitarian aid.
In other words, the UN is violating its own resolutions in Syria, and its desire of impartiality is sadly indirectly helping the suffering of the Syrian people.

Security Council Meeting: The situation in the Middle East - Report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council.
Stephen O’Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator briefs Security Council on humanitarian situation in Syria. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

UN is also subject to the Syrian regime “inputs” into its documents and reports. In an alarming report from Foreign Policy, the newspaper discovered that the U.N, after consulting with the Syrian government, “altered dozens of passages and omitted pertinent information to paint the government of Bashar al-Assad in a more favorable light”. The UN doesn’t deny this.

Linda Tom, an OCHA spokeswoman replied that “it is standard procedure in each country for the UN to consult with the government of the country”. Amanda Pitt added more: “I assume it was done in consultation with a range of partners including the Government, as is normal practice”, she said in an e-mail to Foreign Policy.

More recently, Stephen O’Brien told the security council that the organization will formally ask the Syrian government to approve airdrops of humanitarian aid. The Syrian government has said there is no need for airdrops because no one is starving.
The decision to use airdrops was taken by US, Russia, and other powers. The use of airdrops was to be applied if the Syrian regime refused aid to be delivered by land.

UN is subject to pressure from countries over its decisions.

Earlier this month, U.N put Saudi Arabia in a blacklist of nations and armed groups responsible for killing children. Saudi Arabia didn’t stay very long on the list; UN removed it after pressure from Saudi Arabia itself. Saudi Arabia is leading a coalition that is bombing relentlessly Yemen since March 2015. Saudi Arabia and its coalition are responsible of 60 per cent of the 785 children killed in Yemen last year, according to the UN.

UN bowed down to Saudi Arabia after mounting pressure and threats from the Kingdom and its coalition to remove their financing from UNRWA, the UN agency that deal with Palestinian refugees.

“Bullying, threat, pressure”, a diplomatic source told Reuters on condition of anonymity. The source added it was “real blackmail”.

Vote manipulation. 

Saudi Arabia didn’t only remove the blacklisting with pressure, it has its own seat on the UN Human Rights Council because of a phony deal with Britain. In 2013, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia gained a seat in the UNHRC, in an “exchange of support”. It was basically trading votes and money. The Saudi Cables that were released last year in 2015 by Wikileaks revealed an alarming case. UN watch, an NGO based in Geneva, translated the cables.

“The ministry might find it an opportunity to exchange support with the United Kingdom, where the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia would support the candidacy of the United Kingdom to the membership of the council for the period 2014-2015 in exchange for the support of the United Kingdom to the candidacy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

Another cable uncovered that KSA transferred $100,000 for “expenditures resulting from the campaign to nominate the Kingdom for membership of the human rights council for the period 2014-2016”.

Recently, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch urged UN member-states to suspend Saudi Arabia from the UNHRC over the killings of civilians in Yemen and repression in their own territory.

UN is a failure because of its structure, the security council is a place where bickering powerful nations deal with each other, on the other side, its extreme impartiality pushes the agency to inaction and to asking dictators to allow helping starving civilians. Votes can be bought, it is dependent on funds and will bow down to pressure from unhappy and unsatisfied countries.

The United Nations should be either heavily reformed, or dismantled to let space for the creation of an agency that will at least ensure quick help of civilians in war-torn countries. It should be funded by individuals, not governments.

Why Lebanon should stand against the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen.

Lebanon official stance regarding the Saudi-Led coalition and intervention against Houthis in Yemen have been neither in favour of the coalition nor against it. Here’s why we should stand against it.

Saudi Arabia, backed militarily by a coalition of 8 countries and supported by the USA, began bombing Houthis positions the 25th of March. The latter militant group had ousted the Yemeni president Hadi, backed by international nations and the GCC. Hadi has been elected by consensus in 2012, with 99.8 of votes going for him. His “election” was an agreement for the succession from the former president, Saleh, ousted by the Yemeni popular uprising of 2011-2012.

The war is often simplified as a sectarian war and a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, there’s a little bit of truth in that but the issue is far more complex. Here’s an excellent article from the Washington Post on why it should not be considered as so : The limits of the ‘sectarian’ framing in Yemen. The ongoing conflicts between the Houthis and their opponents must be considered as political and social.

Lebanon official position have been cautious and unclear, yesterday, during the Arab League summit, Salam avoided taking a stance regarding the intervention, it may be seen as wise because of the already divided government regarding the issue.

But by principal, the Lebanese state should be against any intervention, without aligning itself with Iran nor Saudi Arabia. It should remain independent and free of political alliance in the region. The country is enough divided due to the Syrian complex civil war and Hezbollah intervention in following these alliances.

First, it is inconceivable and ironic that Saad al Hariri, that participated in the ousting of the Syrian army in 2005, supports today the Saudi intervention in Yemen. I know it’s about political alliances and allegiance but Hariri should stand against any kind of intervention, especially when the Syrian intervention during the Lebanese civil War didn’t accomplish a thing, transforming the country into a playground between Israel and Syria. After the end of the civil war, a lot of Lebanese suffered from the influence of the Syrian intelligence, the Mukhabarat and the occupation of the Syrian Arab army.
A country that wishes to stay sovereign and free of any political influence should want the same for any other country and should be antimilitarist and anti interventionist.
The fact that Saad el-Hariri and subsequently March 14 complains and condemns Hezbollah intervention in Syria and then applauds the Saudi intervention is hypocrite and should not be ignored.

Hezbollah strongly condemned the Saudi Arabian coalition and intervention, good, but it is also hypocrite due to their foreign intervention in Syria. It may have helped Lebanon security by ousting terrorists further from the boundaries, but let’s not ignore the fact that the intervention was essentially political and its main goal is to maintain Assad in power.

Lebanon in general should be against any kind of military invasion and intervention, has it forgot that it was occupied by the Israelis during 18 years? Does it want the same for other nations? Do some people really think that the complex situation of Yemen will improve by adding more bombs and chaos into the chaos? That absolute and constitutional monarchies and a military republic will improve the rights of Yemeni and install a “democracy”? I don’t believe so.

By being against every intervention, Lebanon may transform into a real neutral country and truly be called the “Switzerland of the Middle East.”

What is the difference between Death Penalty and Drones Strikes. [Opinion]

Defining the Death Penalty.

The Death Penalty or Capital punishment is a legal process when a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. Death Penalties must occur after the accused face a just court. The accused person is punished after concluded that he is the perpetrator of the alleged crime.

The Death Penalty must then be applied in a predefined and installed “just” system. A set of laws that indiscriminately judge people in Justice and Fairness. In Justice, all men must face legal courts and a judgment before being punished. All men have the right to claim they are falsely accused and prove the accuser is wrong.

I really stress on the All men, yes, even Ben Laden or Hitler. Personally, I wish they faced Justice before being punished, even when it is a fact than Ben Laden conducted 9/11, even when it is a fact that Hitler led to awful massacres in WW2. That is justice. All men are equal before the law all man must face just and legal action based on a fair set of laws.

Death Penalty and War.

But what about war ? Is it legal or fair to kill a person before he is judged ? Let’s imagine a small scene.

A group of armed man enter your neighborhood with a clear goal to destroy it and kill. They begin to fire, you and your neighbors take weapons and kill them all.

In this previous scenario is killing a person “death penalty” ? Not really, it is a direct act of self-defense. The Armed men were going to kill you, so you decided that you are going to kill them first. So in a state of war, when faced to a direct lethal threat or attack, you respond and kill without really facing prison.

That’s the whole debate here. The difference between threat and factual attack. The difference between a very well defined threat or a probable threat.

Are drones strikes considered to be conducted in a state of war ?

I said previously that in a state of war you could act in self-defense and kill without facing prison. But is killing alleged terrorists considered as an act of war, in a state of war ? Pro “war on terrorism” will come and say : “yes, it is a war against terrorists that pose a direct threat to the Security of USA and the world so it is legitimate to kill those terrorists”. But what if they aren’t direct ? (Here again define direct threat), Will they be able to conduct terrorists acts in USA ? When ? How?

Those are questions that should be answered.

Personally, I think that drones strikes aren’t considered to be acts of a state of war. Those that are preparing an act of terror in USA or anywhere else in the world, didn’t act yet. Of course we must not wait until they act to judge them or stop them. Those terrorists will try to find ways to destroy USA and their enemies. But destroying them before judging them is dangerous. It is better to stop them and judge them and put them in jail [or face death penalty]. Today it is highly possible with Interpol and the international police force. In fact, it is way more instructive to understand why they want to attack America and their allies. This only could end the endless conflict against terrorists.

So what is the difference between death penalty and drones strikes to my opinion ?

Drones strikes are unjust because they happen 1) before the crime of the alleged terrorist and 2) before he is judged.| Death penalty is an act of justice whereas drones strikes are unjust death penalties.

PS : What I have said in this article doesn’t make me pro-terrorist or pro-death penalty. But it does make me anti-drones strikes.