THE UN IS THE SAME. YET THE WORLD HAS CHANGED

Abdelhamid Siyam is a professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and a former UN Spokesperson.  He is a writer and an accredited journalist to the UN. On the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, he wrote a series of articles about the organisation’s role in the current world affairs and the urgent reforms within the UN.

“On October 24, the UN celebrated its 75th anniversary. On this occasion, you criticized it more than to congratulate it, and you took a decision to quit the organization. Why did you decide to do it now?”

“Indeed, I wrote some reflections on this occasion. I said the UN had achieved many good things especially in the fields of development, human rights, health, poverty combating, women’s rights, child protection, food distributions to the needy, supporting millions of refugees, protection of the environment, disarmament and many more. The UN however failed to prevent many wars and failed to settle many conflicts. It is not the UN as a mechanism to blame but UN as an intergovernmental organization. The UN was subject to superpowers’ rivalry and competition. In many cases UN was unable to prevent illegal wars like the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was an eyewitness to the occupation of Iraq and saw with my own eyes the atrocities committed against innocent Iraqis. I decided to quit the UN following what happened on 19 August 2003, when the UN Compound was targeted by a terrorist attack that killed 22 of my colleagues and friends and wounded 150. I thought I need to change path to something I like and enjoy which is teaching in a university.”

“It is said that the UN had lost its reputation long time ago. We can see that the countries playing leading roles in the organisation don't even try to carry out reforms. What is the reason of that?”

“The UN has good prestige in some areas and bad prestige in many other areas. In conflict resolutions, the UN did not do well, not because it cannot but because it was paralysed by the competition of the superpowers and the casting of the veto power.  One of the greatest failures of the UN was the question of Palestine, when the country was dismembered and its people – uprooted from its own ancestral homeland. Every time the issue comes to the Security Council for an action, the US veto will block that move. Yet the SC was unified in endorsing the war on Iraq in 1990, when Iraq occupied Kuwait. The Russian and Chinese double veto during the Syrian crisis that started in March 2011 made it possible to deconstruct the whole country and see millions of Syrians becoming refugees or internally displaced. The blame should be squarely placed on those countries that stand with their own interest at the expense of millions of innocent people. The UN, however, should be proud of its achievements in other fields related to the development and human rights, international law, humanitarian aid and the production of important instruments.”

“In your writings, you mentioned that some countries try to use the UN as a tool. Which countries do you mean?”

“Superpowers have always used the UN to promote their own interests. The UN is good as long as it serves some countries’ interest, and it becomes a failed organisation if it stands against big powers’ interest. For example, the US rushes to the Security Council to impose more sanctions on North Korea every time the country tests a new ballistic missile. The US also utilised the UN during the Gulf crisis when Iraq occupied Kuwait on August 2, 1990. Russia is protecting its ally in Syria, regardless of how much atrocities the latter committed against civilians, by casting the veto every time. France protects its ally Morocco regarding the crisis in Western Sahara. NATO countries used the Security Council to legitimise the intervention in Libya. These superpowers however ignore the UN when it does not fit their interest. The US waged the 2003 war in Iraq without giving any attention to the UN, which rejected the US rational for the war. Same thing happened when Russia controlled Crimea in Ukraine.”

“You offer that more countries should be a member of the Security Council, and the cancellation or restriction of the right of veto. Would these reforms bring more fair decisions by the organisation?”

“I believe the UN needs major reforms and revitalisation. The Security Council does not represent the world power of today, rather the world how it was after the Second World War.  The division of power in the Security Council is tilting in favour of the five permanent members, who enjoy veto power. These countries were victorious during the Second World War but the parameters of power have changed since. Nuclear power is no longer an indicator for being a great power. Economic power now is far more important than weapons. Japan and Germany lost the war in 1945 but now they both are stronger than some permanent members of the Security Council. The Council needs to reflect the world of today by adding permanent and non-permanent members to reflect the regional powers of today in Africa, Asia and Latin America. But that is not enough. The veto power has be reconsidered and reformed, by either abolishing the veto all together, although this almost impossible, or at least restricting the use of the veto and making it difficult to use, or at least a veto should be valid if two permanent members and three non-permanent ones cast a single veto.  This is just an example of how the veto can be reformed.”

“Most of the times the UN adopts a selective approach in implementing SC resolutions. For example, in the Middle East issue, the UNSC resolutions are implemented immediately but in case of Azerbaijan the 4 known resolutions have not been implemented for 27 years. These resolutions are vital for us, as they demand the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. What is the reason of this selective approach?”

“There are two types of SC resolutions: those under Chapter 6, which deals with the peaceful settlement of disputes, and those adopted under Chapter 7, which enforces resolutions to stop aggression and to punish aggressors. Resolutions adopted regarding Iraq in 1990-1991 were all adopted under Chapter 7. That is why we saw power assembled to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Yet all the resolutions adopted regarding Palestine were not implemented because the US is not interested. Similarly, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia... The SC adopted 4 resolutions in 1993, which all condemned the Armenian aggressions against Azerbaijan and called on Armenia to withdraw from the lands occupied during the first Karabakh war. Armenia did not abide by these resolutions. The OSCE Minsk Group, which mediated between the two conflicting parties, was not neutral and did not force a solution. When the conflict declined and became remote, and guns went silent, everyone went home and ignored the fact that Armenia remains an occupying power that took over 20 per cent of Azerbaijani lands leaving one million refugees. This is a good example of how the Security Council can ignore low-grade frozen conflicts.”

“What will be the future of the UN?”

“The UN is staying. No other organisation can replace it. The UN however is due for reform to make it more responsive, action-oriented, ready to move, and prepared to prevent conflict.  The Council must be enlarged to absorb new powers and the veto should be streamlined to be fairly used only.  The superpowers need to live up to their commitment when they signed the UN Charter 75 years ago to save succeeding generation from the scourge of war.”