“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.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS