“I am ashamed of the UN.”
That is how Czech Minister of Defense Jana Cernochova put it the other day. “In my opinion, the Czech Republic has nothing to expect in an organization that supports terrorists and does not respect the basic right to self-defense. Let’s get out.”
Wow.
Nobody is expecting the Czech Republic to quit the UN, but Cernochova’s outrage says it all. One way or another, pretty much every one of its 193 member nations is fed up and increasingly convinced that the UN is fast making itself irrelevant. It is meant to be the world’s primary organ for multilateral cooperation and collective peacekeeping, and its charter prohibits the use or threat of force, but at this rate, the UN could soon meet the fate of its precursor, the League of Nations, which showed itself to be useless in the 1930s and was finally dissolved just after World War II.
Cernochova’s indignation concerns a UN resolution introduced by Jordan and passed by the General Assembly with a vote of 121 in favor, 14 against and 44 abstentions. It demands “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce” in the conflict between Israel and Hamas now raging in the Gaza Strip.
The assembly had first rejected an amendment sponsored by Canada. It would have added that the UN also “unequivocally rejects and condemns the terrorist attacks by Hamas,” and demands the immediate release of all hostages. As passed, the resolution therefore does not mention Hamas, the hostages or Israel’s right to self-defense.
Well, you might say, that is just the General Assembly. The real action at the UN is in the Security Council, the body of five permanent and 10 rotating members that can dispatch troops to make or keep peace in trouble spots, but that forum has become the diplomatic version of a mud-wrestling fight between the Western democracies among the five veto-wielding powers — the US, UK and France — and the autocratic axis of Russia and China.
The US last week proposed a council resolution that condemned Hamas’ terrorism and reaffirmed the right of all states to self-defense. It demanded the release of the hostages and also called for “humanitarian pauses” to protect civilians.
No, said Russia and China. They were joined by one of the rotating members, the United Arab Emirates.
Then it was Russia’s turn to get rejected. Its resolution called for an immediate ceasefire and condemned all violence against civilians. That is rich coming from a nation that has been bombing, abducting, maiming and killing Ukrainian civilians for more than 600 days. The other problem was that Russia’s version failed also to recognize Israel’s right to self-defense and even called for rescinding the evacuation orders to Gazans, though those are meant to protect civilians. So the US and UK said no.
Other nations, especially those in the so-called Global South, are trying to stay out of this geopolitical brawl and throwing up their hands in exasperation. Gabon, a rotating member of the council, voted for both the US and Russian texts, just to get something done.
“We regret that antagonism within this council” makes any progress impossible, Gabonese Representative to the UN Lily Stella Ngyema-Ndong said diplomatically.
Some degree of strife in a global forum should not be surprising. As divided and polarized as we are in our domestic politics, we can hardly expect harmony when showing up at international institutions that ipso facto subsume a “clash of civilizations.”
And yet idealist internationalism rests on the aspiration of rising above our differences. It has a long and venerable tradition, embodied most famously in former US president Woodrow Wilson, who reluctantly entered World War I, but then decided to “make the world safe for democracy.” The result, as conceived by him, was the League of Nations, a club of nations that promised, in theory, to provide collective security for one another, settling disputes by arbitration and defending victims of aggression.
However, from the start the league was hobbled when the US Senate, in a snub to Wilson, failed to ratify the covenant. The US not only stayed out of the league, but turned isolationist instead. Without US leadership, the league therefore lacked the “realist” element of power that Wilson’s “idealist” vision required.
That became clear in the 1930s, in a succession of crises the league was meant to prevent or redress but could not. Starting in 1931, the Japanese seized Manchuria. In 1935, Italy’s Benito Mussolini took Abyssinia, now called Ethiopia. With the league showing its impotence in each successive crisis, Italy, Japan and Nazi Germany ignored it altogether and set the world on fire.
The UN, chartered in San Francisco just after World War II, was therefore supposed to be a new and improved institution and this time around, the US, the clear hegemon of the post-World War II order, would stick around as foster parent.
The Cold War made that hard, of course, but the idea of collective security, which ran from Wilsonianism to the UN, stood a chance.
In 1950 the North Koreans overran the southern peninsula. On the Security Council, China was still represented by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which was by that time in Taiwan, causing the Soviet Union to boycott council meetings, which meant it could not exercise its veto. In its absence, the body authorized a UN force — led by the US, but including 14 other nations — to liberate South Korea.
These days, such intervention is unthinkable. Last year, one member of the Security Council, Russia, invaded another UN member, Ukraine, and keeps tormenting its population to this day. Then Hamas went on its rampage, and yet the international “community,” such as it is, cannot even agree on what to call such terrorism.
Admittedly, the UN still plays a vital role in other ways. Its norms and conventions regulated everything from international telecommunications to seafaring, and its relief agencies work hard to alleviate the human toll of conflicts and disaster in Gaza and beyond, but in times of crisis such as now, the General Assembly and Security Council turn into a Babel in which everybody distrusts everybody else and finding common words becomes impossible.
When UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the Hamas terror, but added that the attacks “did not happen in a vacuum,” Israeli Representative to the UN Gilad Erdan accused him of “blood libel” and demanded his resignation.
And so things fall apart, the center cannot hold. That center was to be the League of Nations in Wilson’s day and the UN in ours. Instead, as Erdan has said, and Cernochova and others would agree, the UN “no longer holds even one ounce of legitimacy or relevance.”
We have entered another age of disunited nations, an era when mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics. Previously, he was editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global and a writer for The Economist. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS