The UN@70 and Beyond

“There is no single institution that I found more exhilarating at its best, yet more debilitatingly frustrating at its worst, than the United Nations...”  Gareth Evans (erstwhile foreign minister of Australia)

24th October marks the date the United Nations was called to being after the ratification of the United Nations Charter by majority of the original signatory countries inclusive of the Allied Victors from the Second World War----United States, United Kingdom, France and the Union of Socialist and Soviet Republics (USSR). As such, on this date since 1945, has been declared United Nations Day. The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary since the world’s largest socio-political organization was formed; and same for the 70th anniversary year after the end of the Second World War.

Aircraft Acrobatic display at Beijing to commemorate the 70th Anniversary since the end of WW2
Source: bbcnews.com

 In reminiscence of this numerical feat, it calls to question for a moment of retrospect of the United Nations attainments so far.

Originally conceived 1st January 1942 when 26 Countries fighting under the aegis of the Allied forces against Axis powers decided to sign the Declaration of the United Nations, that Declaration in itself was borne out the concept of The Atlantic Charter which was a mutual charter between the United Kingdom and the United States signed 14th August 1941 aboard the USS Augusta off the coast of Newfoundland. After series of strategy meetings of the Allied powers to shape the cause of World War 2 and its apparent aftermath, the United Nations Charter was born and signed by representatives of 50 Nations on 26^th June 1945 in San Francisco, USA. The charter was subsequently ratified and adopted by majority of the signatory countries on 24th October 1945, thus, calling the United Nations Organization into being.

The 1945 feat was not the first attempt at having a global socio-political organization, as the first of such attempt was in 1899 following the International Peace Conference at The Hague which adopted the Convention for pacifist measures for International Dispute resolution, thereby calling into being the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1902. This body played no part in stemming the protractive and contractive scourge of the First World War (1914-1918). After a gruesome four years of combative murder amongst European powers from World War one, The League of Nations was founded as a resultant of the 1919 treaty of Versailles which formally ended World War one. Though a brain child of the then US president-Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points Plan for a peaceful Europe, the USA, adopting a policy of International isolation never became a member. With its headquarters in London, other European powers such as Germany, Italy and Russia never became committed members each joining late and leaving early. Being only an effective organization of the United Kingdom and France, The League of Nations was powerless in controlling the voracious expansionist appetite of Hitler and Mussolini, and ultimately, despite sanctions which with weak enforcement, these two fascists plunged Europe and the World into another global conflict. Thus, The League of Nations ceased to Exist.

From the horrors of two World Wars, global leaders stood up to the mantra of ‘never again’ to another global conflict. As such, it became customary for newly independent nations to seek UN membership. Comprising of over 98% percent of Sovereign states on Earth, the UN membership has surged from a paltry 51 countries at its founding in 1945, to 193 member Nations today.

“The United Nations was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell”.... Dag Hammarskjöld (Third UN Secretary General)

Despite a committed action to international peace and global cooperation on matters of trade and development, the UN has seemingly become a clog in its own wheels of progress. Originally adopting a leadership structure in which the Allied Victors from World War 2 (US, UK, France, China and Russia) do not hold administrative leadership positions in the UN, yet this clique which essentially comprise the ‘veto’ votes of the United Nations Security council have by their individual or collective actions jammed any sort of progressive network collaboration the UN may achieve.

Being run with a heavy budget and bureaucratic technocrat personnel, it is sometimes bemusing to see member nations more ready to spend on expensive war efforts rather than peace initiatives. It is also harrowing to note how much heavy budget is apportioned to protracted humanitarian aid resulting from conflict situations whilst a feeble attempt is made at resolving the root cause of conflicts.

From initial success stories of international development cooperation as seen in post World War Two devastated Europe, helped to stand by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the UN has sought to build on this template by launching international development initiatives in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which is now being transited to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, threats to international peace and stability from several conflict hotbeds around the Middle East and Africa especially since 2010 has rubbished whatever strategic gains these initiatives has tangibly achieved.

Popularly identified as blue helmets, the United Nations peace keeping force having a weak mandate when deployed to conflict situations have most times been ineffective in preventing conflict escalations, genocides/Massacres especially as seen in Democratic Republic of Congo where the UN has its largest contingent force.

Overall, the UN has been a success story in forging international bonding and cooperation on sundry matters via its various agencies. On its 70th year and looking forward, it is hoped that the UN will rise above another unseeming East-West bipolarity between the USA and Russia to continually guarantee the World an avoidance of an impending Armageddon. However, this depends on the will power of the member states especially the bi-polar powers.

"The 70th anniversary of the United Nations is an opportunity to reflect – to look back on the UN’s history and take stock of its enduring achievements. It is also an opportunity to spotlight where the UN – and the international community as a whole – needs to redouble its efforts to meet current and future challenges across the three pillars of its work: peace and security, development, and human rights." - Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's message for UN70

Global and Regional Alliances Development on Syria

“The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals.... The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organisations are also going through difficult times..”.... Vladmir Putin (Valdai Club speech, October 2014)

From a tale of twist and turns, the Syrian conflict has metamorphosed from that of an Arab Spring solidarity protest to a full blown civil war with religious undertones, serving a practical laboratory for proxy warfare pitting regional and World powers against each other.

Illustration of the current Syrian conflict trend
Source:http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/16/world/middleeast/untangling-the-overlapping-conflicts-in-the-syrian-war.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

Like an inselberg, the Assad regime has weathered the odds against it albeit the resultant carnage on the Syrian human and infrastructural milieu consequentially, of that Country’s 22million pre-war population, over 250,000 have been killed, about 7.6 million are internally displaced, 4million have fled the Country’s borders and have increasingly fuelled the European migrant/refugee crises. As such, on the current global scale, one out of every four refugees globally is Syrian.

Defying all peace mediation and palliative odds, especially with the active participation of Russia, the Syrian case is actively taking the course of leaving the last bleeding man be declared as victor; for in series of mis-calculated foreign intervention from regional and global powers, the resultant has been a creation of hydra-headed belligerents with no clear vision for the sustenance of the Syrian State.

With Western powers standing aloof at the onset of the Syrian conflict, regional powers of the Middle East championed by Saudi Arabia footed the belligerent cause against the Syrian government in terms of funding and arms. Seeing an opportunity for a balance of power, the Iranian government shored up support for its alleged Shiite spiritual ally in opposition against what it saw as an unbecoming resurging Sunni dominance from the Arab Spring. In the end, rebel groups funded by the Saudi Arabia led coalition of Middle East powers metamorphosed into hardliner Jihadist groups which in turn became a menacing threat to religious tolerance within the region.

Nevertheless, Western powers saw no glory in changing their stance against the Assad regime, choosing instead to derecognize the Assad government in favour of the opposition Free Syria Army. In spite of this, the Assad regime was learnt credence as it labelled the belligerent opposition as ‘terrorists’ and in the real sense of fact, the Syrian political Opposition had no control over the fighters and a times, the opposition belligerents had had to turn the guns on each other as there were gaps in central command control and ideological/religious stance to the conflict.

A caricature cartoon of Russia's Putin propping up Syria's Assad
Source:http://eastwestpublic.com/2015/10/09/russias-syrian-bombing-gives-boost-to-iran/

Amidst the ensuing chaos, Russia stood arms akimbo, preferring to support the Syrian government with resolutions and its veto power at the United Nations. As such, when the United States threatened the Syrian government with airstrikes if it crossed the ‘red line’ in the use of Chemical weapons, Russia pushed for the decommissioning of Syria’s Chemical weapons arsenal which in turn was surprisingly successful.

For four long years since the start of the Syrian conflict, it seems unending as it has defied the cerebral diplomatic intrigues of the World’s top diplomats in Koffi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi. Not even peace summits in the historic peace convention city of Geneva have brought any beacon of hope to resolving the Syrian conflict.

With all parties and proxies standing firm on their lines and not ready to yield ground, the Syrian conflict became embroiled in a stalemate, threatening to partition the country alongside the line of control of the belligerents. Not even the menacing advance the Islamic State (IS) identified as a common enemy to all parties in the conflict has united the belligerents. Instead, each belligerent has sought to deal with the Islamic State individually whilst pursing their individual causes against each other.

With the Syrian president openly admitting that he might have to concede territory to the enemy in order to consolidate its stronghold in the face of declining manpower, the Russians have seized the initiative to step up military support for the regime, whilst claiming to be doing its bit in fighting terrorism and Islamic extremism as manifested by the Islamic State.

Whilst the United States and its NATO allies have stepped up sortie attacks on Islamic State positions and refusing to collaborate with the Syrian government, rather choosing to identify ‘moderate Syrian rebels’ to train and arm as foot soldiers, the tactics has apparently failed, as the Islamic State keep capturing more territory and the US trained rebels keep melting away in battle against ISIS and gifting the enemy military hardware.

Russia on the other hand has chosen to identify with the Syrian government in the fight against the Islamic State and as such, entered into a de facto coalition with all parties supporting the Syrian government such as Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah.

Source: www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34474362

Despite the identification of a common enemy in ISIS by all belligerents, they have failed to unite under a common cause. This calls to question the historicity of Western powers if they have lessons from World War two when a coalition of Allied powers in United States, United Kingdom and Russia had to fight concomitantly to ensure the defeat of NAZI Germany, and the happenstances thereafter which resulted in the cold war.

As regional and global powers pursue their interests in the Syrian conflict, it must be noted that an inflammable situation which could ignite into a wider conflict is in the offing, as these conflicting powers could accidentally turn their weapons on one another.

Seventy years after the end of the most devastating war in Human history, there are still several applicable lessons to be learnt from World War Two. Regional and Global powers party to the Syrian conflict will profit the cause of global peace by taking revision courses from that epoch.

“The crisis has reached a point where, unless we end the war, the country will slowly empty itself — a haemorrhaging of its brightest and best, it’s young and old, escaping unspeakable horrors in the largest refugee migration since World War II, until all that will be left are the fighters”..... KIM GHATTAS