UNITED NATIONS (IPS) – With more than 20,000 civilians killed last year in conflicts in 10 countries — Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen — UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated his call for a “global ceasefire”: a proposal which failed to generate a positive response since he [...]

Sunday Times 2

US-China conflict: What UN needs is a ceasefire inside its own Security Council


UNITED NATIONS (IPS) – With more than 20,000 civilians killed last year in conflicts in 10 countries — Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen — UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reiterated his call for a “global ceasefire”: a proposal which failed to generate a positive response since he first announced it last March.

But with the UN’s most powerful body remaining deadlocked — and facing a bloodless confrontation between two major powers — the United Nations now seems to be in need of a “political ceasefire” at its very doorstep: inside its own 15-member Security Council (UNSC).

US President Donald Trump (on screen), addresses the General Assembly’s seventy-fifth session on September 22. Credit: United Nations

On September 22, the opening day of the annual high-level debate in the General Assembly, the US and China, two veto-armed members, battled it out with accusations and counter-accusations.

The public confrontation between the two countries is likely to bring the UNSC to a standstill — perhaps with a worse-case scenario of the US and China vetoing each other’s resolutions –proving the Security Council has outlived its usefulness.

Dr Richard J. Ponzio, Director, Just Security 2020 and Senior Fellow at the Washington-based Stimson Center, told IPS that beginning in March, the U.S. blocked passage of a UNSC resolution (until July) endorsing Secretary-General Guterres’ call for a global ceasefire, to ensure that during the pandemic, life-saving assistance can reach the most vulnerable.

Similar to its rationale then, he said, President Trump’s main emphasis in his annual General Assembly address was to pin the blame on China for the spread of the coronavirus.

In both tone and substance, Dr Ponzio pointed out, President Trump’s UNGA speech contrasted with his contemporaries, including Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Whereas President Trump elected in his brief remarks to mainly attack China for spreading COVID-19 and other transgressions, the other world leaders spoke at length about the need for global cooperation and a rules-based international order to better cope with global threats and challenges,” he noted.

Trump intensified his long running trade wars and political battles with China when he launched a blistering undiplomatic attack on Beijing, during his address to the General Assembly.

While singing the praises of his own achievements, he singled out Beijing: “We must hold accountable the nation which unleashed this plague onto the world: China”.

Trump also accused China of “controlling” the World Health Organisation (WHO) and dumping millions and millions of tons of plastic and trash into the oceans, overfishing other countries’ waters, destroying vast swaths of coral reef, and emitting more toxic mercury into the atmosphere than any country anywhere in the world.

One news site ran a fitting headline which read: “Trump at the UN: America is good, China is bad”.

Taking a passing shot at Trump’s unilateralism, Chinese President Xi Jinping told the Assembly “humanity will win this battle” against the virus, and “any attempt of politicising the issue, or stigmatisation, must be rejected”.

COVID-19 reminds us that economic globalisation is an indisputable reality and a historical trend, he said.

“Burying one’s head in the sand like an ostrich, in the face of economic globalisation, or trying to fight it with Don Quixote’s lance, goes against the trend of history,” he noted.

China has “no intention to fight either a Cold War or a hot one with any country” “Let this be clear: The world will never return to isolation, and no one can sever the ties between countries,” Xi said, pointing out that China will not “engage in zero sum game.”

In his 75th anniversary speech, Xi was equally hard-hitting: “No country has the right to dominate global affairs, control the destiny of others, or keep advantages in development all to itself. Even less should one be allowed to do whatever it likes and be the hegemon, bully or boss of the world. Unilateralism is a dead end.”

Meanwhile, as the UN commemorates its 75th anniversary, the most widespread criticism against the UN is focused largely on the Security Council where member states have failed, over the last 25 years, in their longstanding efforts to reform and expand it.

Perhaps the harshest criticism is its inability — and its monumental failure — to resolve long-outstanding problems: including finding a homeland for the Palestinians.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS it is noteworthy that the majority of vetoes in the Security Council in recent decades have been in regard to resolutions addressing violations of international humanitarian law.

“Both the United States and Russia have repeatedly abused their veto power to protect allied governments from accountability. This does even include the dozens of other initiatives that were tabled or otherwise prevented from coming up to a vote”.

Virtually all of these resolutions were under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, so these were simply about recognising and deploring such violations and did include military intervention, sanctions, or anything else, but they were still blocked from being passed, in most cases by a single negative vote, he pointed out.

Both Moscow and Washington have essentially sent a message that their allies, such as Syria and Israel respectively, can act with impunity.”

“In 2002, I wrote this article (link below) in response to the Bush administration’s effort to justify its planned invasion of Iraq by emphasising the importance of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions”.


However, in addition to the dozen or so resolutions they alleged were being violated by Iraq, a conservative estimate reveals that there are an additional 88 Security Council resolutions about countries other than Iraq that were also then being violated, said Zunes.

“This raised serious questions regarding the Bush administration’s insistence that it is motivated by a duty to preserve the credibility of the United Nations, particularly since the vast majority of the governments violating these resolutions were close allies of the United States, which blocked the Security Council from enforcing them”.

The total now is closer to 100, said Zunes.

(The writer can be contacted at thalifdeen@aol.com)


Share This Post


Advertising Rates

Please contact the advertising office on 011 - 2479521 for the advertising rates.