UN REFORMS: THE NECESSITY ARISING FROM CONTRADICTIONS

upa-admin 06 Şubat 2014 2.099 Okunma 0
UN REFORMS: THE NECESSITY ARISING FROM CONTRADICTIONS

Recent times have seen debates on a variety of levels on the need for the new system of international relations system. Discussions are revolving around reshaping the UN. Various proposals are put forward. Experts underline the creation of a complicated situation on a global scale. They claim there are internal contradictions in the global geopolitics in the ongoing conflicts around the world. They note that there is largely a problem of implementing real reforms in such organizations as the United Nations.

Difficulties of the global geopolitics

Experts have written for long time about the need to renew the system of international relations. In this context, the ideas on the UN reforms surface very often. They are well grounded. On the one hand, the world`s leading countries make way for injustice for the sake of their interests. They pursue the policy of “double standards”. On the other hand, the UN fails on its responsibilities as an organization for various reasons.

It is necessary to underline one aspect. Some events of recent years show that not all the UN members are sincere in their actions. For instance, Azerbaijan faced a biased attitude of some forces when the country was elected as a member of the Security Council. What President Ilham Aliyev said in this connection reflects the situation more clearly. At the ceremony of awarding the Person of the Year 2013 prize by the national hero Chingiz Mustafayev Foundation and ANS Group of Companies, Ilham Aliyev said: “But I must also mention the fact that our election to the Security Council was not so easy. You probably know quite well that Azerbaijan was elected after 16 rounds. And there are reasons for that… I can say that we had serious opposition. Unlike the opposition inside the country, it was really the serious opposition. But despite this, we demonstrated a principled stand and did not retreat. A proposal was even made for Azerbaijan to withdraw its candidacy as it was already under time pressure. I do not believe that there has been another situation in the UN when the process took 16 rounds and three days… On Friday, this process was suspended and on Saturday and Sunday work was carried out with some countries in an effort not to support the candidacy of Azerbaijan. After that, the situation got somewhat difficult…” (see: President Ilham Aliyev named “Person of the year 2013” by National Hero Chingiz Mustafayev Foundation and ANS Group of Companies / AzerTac, 17 January 2014).

No doubt, the uncompromising struggle of Azerbaijan brings its results. Most UN member countries’ position is objective. However, there were forces, as President Ilham Aliyev underlined, who worked against Azerbaijan in these organizations and dragged out the process. It is noteworthy that such incidents take place often at the UN. Preston University Prof. Edward Luck said: “American idealism created the United Nations and American skepticism is killing it” (see: Edward C. Luck. Reforming the United Nations: Lessons from a History in Progress. International Relations Studies and the United Nations Occasional Papers. 2003, №1, 73 səh.). Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Prof. Ramesh Thakur confessed that the USA plays a critical role in determining the UN`s agenda and actions (see: Ramesh Thakur. Объединенные нации и Соединенные Штаты / “Россия в глобальной политике”, 15 December 2011). This is why unjust steps were taken against a number of countries. For instance, the UN found itself in a miserable situation in Iraq and Somalia. The Clinton Administration scapegoated the United Nations for the Somalia debacle (see: the previous source).

The need for new mechanisms: hopes and reality

It is possible to see the seriousness of the contradictions the UN faced in the events referred to as “humanitarian intervention” and “sanction imposition mechanisms”. According to the analysis of the Russian Council for International Affairs, humanitarian interventions virtually put the UN face to face with “dilemmas” (see: Дилеммы гуманитарных интервенций / “Russiancouncil.ru”, 9 November 2012). For instance, Columbia University professor Michael Doyle is confident that it manifested itself in the Syria and Libya events (see the previous source). Similar cases can be observed in the imposition of sanctions (see: Dmitry Kiku. Современные международные механизмы санкционного воздействия / “Russiancouncil.ru”, 6 August 2013).

Against this backdrop, a sanction adoption mechanism in the UN Security Council is seen as a more serious problem. Five permanent Security Council members (the USA, UK, France, Russia and China) may veto any decision, which contradicts their interests. It became evident more clearly in the Syria events. Russia and China rejected the draft resolutions by the Western countries. In addition, this format is extremely difficult to use in approaching fairly to the events taking place in various regions. For this reason, recent years saw the new proposals voiced to change the composition of the UN Security Council.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan also draws attention to this aspect of the issue. He underlined the need for reforms in this organization and for improvement of not only human rights but also decision-making mechanisms (see: Кофи Аннан: ООН нуждается в реформировании / “Russiancouncil.ru”, 17 July 2013). On top of all, a number of analysts and politicians came up with the ideas to increase the number of the permanent members. Some suggest including India and Brazil, and others one of Muslim nations.

One gets the impression that there is a ground for implementing UN reforms. If this matter is highlighted at various levels, it is possible to claim that the need emerged to improve the regulation of international relations. However, it is needed to take into account an important issue. The point is that there are many contradictions in the contemporary global geopolitics. They exist in various regions of the world. Contradictions deepened in some places. Under such circumstances, what common mechanism can be created in the UN? Experts pay a special attention to this aspect of the problem. They do not believe that the UN as an organization will be able to work effectively without eliminating discrepancies, confrontations existing in the world.

Moreover, we must acknowledge that there is the need for mechanisms at the level of international organizations to solve these problems. We need to break the vicious circle, which is created to some extent. It sets us to thinking that great powers are not willing to consider this aspect of the problem. In addition, they continue the political line leading to new contradictions. We have to highlight the “double standards” policy as the main factor.

It comes as if great powers, which proclaim UN reforms, “forget” about the important issue. They must be just and should avoid the approach based on their own interests only. Let us say that no effective step is taken to force the aggressor to free the occupied Azerbaijani lands. Nothing is done to enforce four resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council. Azerbaijan faced a biased attitude during its election as member of the Security Council. With all these negative things still remaining, the reform can in no way be effective. It is difficult to apply refined rules to regulate international relations.

In spite of these factors, the global geopolitics demands formation of the new system of international relations. Analysts underline that the new global geopolitical order is being created. An effective international organization that is capable of regulating this process can hardly be seen. The number of problems is increasing globally. Humanity is likely to get crushed under this “burden”. It means the time has come to star doing concrete work.

Leyla MAMMADALIYEVA

Kaynak: Newtimes.az

 

Leave A Response »

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.