AF ÁRSGÖMLUM FUNDI Í VÍNARBORG UM ÁBYRGÐ Í ALÞJÓÐASTJÓRNMÁLUM
Hinn 21. september í fyrra var mér boðið að taka þátt í málstofu í Vínarborg þar sem fjallað var um ábyrgð í alþjóðasamskiptum, Responsibility in International Relations. Á fundinum, sem var lokaður, voru flutt 12 erindi auk inngangserindis Hans Köchlers, prófessors emeritus í heimspeki við háskólann í Innspruck, en hann veitir forstöðu þeirri stofnun sem stóð að þessum fundi, The International Progress Organization.
Nú hafa tíu þeirra erinda sem flutt voru á ráðstefnunni verið gefin út á bók og einnig birtur úrdráttur þar úr þeim tveimur erindum sem ekki eru í heild sinni í bókinni.
Erindi mitt var birt í heild sinni að undanskildum inngangsorðum fram að fyrstu millifyrirsögn.
Ég birti hér að neðan erindi mitt sem ég nefndi:
TIME TO STEP OUT OF A COLONIAL WORLD - WHY INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS MUST BE RECONSTRUCTED
I want to start by paying tribute to The International Progress Organization and its President, Dr. Hans Köchler, not only for organizing this roundtable consultation on Responsibility in International Relations, but also for an invaluable contribution over the years to research, and initiatives to a constructive dialogue on international affairs.
Obvious is the urgent need for a serious effort to rethink international institutional structures. They have proved unable to prevent states resorting to wars and violence, now on a truly ominous scale.
It is also telling that suppressed groups and nationalities should have to turn to bodies outside the formal structures of The United Nations and other agencies set up by the international community to guard human rights.
As an example I mention the alleged war crimes committed by the Turkish Republic in several cities in South East Anatolia, largely populated by Kurdish people, in the period from the beginning of June 2015 until beginning of 2017. After countless unsuccessful pleas to the world community to investigate and intervene it was the independent Permanent People´s Tribunal in Paris, which was based on the legacy of the Russel/Sartre Tribunal of the late 1960´s, that eventually organized hearings on these atrocities in March 2018 and subsequently came to the conclusion that indeed serious war crimes had been committed. (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/mepdat/attach/124963_84deb7a1-ca53-4da4-bc8e-c1028a7f465d_1.pdf )
If it had not been for the Permanent People´s Tribunal at the instigation of the The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights (ELDH), The Association for Democracy and International Law (MAF-DAD) and the Kurdish Institute of Brussels, these atrocities would not have been investigated by any international body. I mention this since I attended these hearings as a private person and was greatly moved by what I witnessed. But needless to say, since this was outside formal institutional structures there was no follow up. Nobody had to take responsibility.
And this brings us to our present discussion on how to make the formal international institutions more responsive and more effective.
Real politics and values – real and not so real
We are sometimes told that in Ukraine a war is being fought over values. We are defending western values is often exclaimed in Washington and Brussels while in Ukraine this is being echoed, sometimes in a chilling way: You provide the weapons, we the blood on the battlefield, the then Ukrainian Defence Minister, Oleksii Reznikov said on television on January 5th this year and he added : We are carrying out NATO’s mission today. They aren’t shedding their blood. We’re shedding ours. That’s why they’re required to supply us with weapons. My colleagues, the defence ministers, now say ”you are protecting the entire civilized world, the entire west, you are the real shield of civilization.” https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1613086637571080192
These are big words and given the circumstances difficult to stomach. But nonetheless not to be ignored. The workings of the global institutional world, which is at issue here today, must always be seen in the context of an ever-changing political environment. In other words, it is not merely a question of understanding the mechanics of the international world but the political environment within which institutions operate must also be taken account of – and thereby values.
But which values? You may be acquainted with the reaction of Mother Theresa in response to the American billionaire who encountered her tending the sick in the gutters of Kolkata. When he exclaimed in horror, that he would not do this for a million dollars, there came her reply, neither would I.
If we now ask which of them, Mother Theresa or the billionaire, would be the most fitting proponent of western values, not to mention civilization at large to use the words of the Ukrainian Defence Minister, we would need to qualify our answer.
The ingredients of change
I stand on the left in politics. My father on the other hand was on the right. But when I come to think of it I am basically saying the same things which I remember him saying half a century ago.
What has happened?
The political pendulum, at least amongst the political class in the west, has swung to the right. US president Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, made publicly known his concerns regarding what he called the “military industrial complex” (Eisenhower´s farewell address Jan.19th 1961, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address#:~:text=In%20the%20councils%20of%20government,power%20exists%20and%20will%20persist. ) , namely that it needed strict democratic control, while Democrat Joe Biden today applauds ever more lethal weapons being produced by that same complex, to be employed in faraway lands.
On social issues things have also changed drastically. And naturally, we ask ourselves how it could be that something, which was inconceivable yesterday, is possible today? Have political attitudes changed so drastically or has apathy set in, even resignation?
A mixture of all, I think.
How should it be otherwise with politicians saying one thing and then doing another. David Cameron criticising China while British Prime Minister, becoming their employee after leaving office; former German Chancellor Schroeder, working for the Russians; Gro Harlem Brundtland, Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway and then head of the World Health Organization, receiving money from Pepsi Cola on her retirement; Tony Blair advising despotic governments for large sums of money after leaving office as UK Prime Minister; former US Presidents seemingly never opening their mouth without pay… H
ow can you take such people seriously when they tell you of their concern for ethical conduct, social justice, and respect for democracy?
I started my working career as a tv reporter and analyst at Icelandic State TV. This was around 1980 whend Thatcher had come to power in the UK. I will do away with monopolies, she said, and start with the worst monopoly of all, the labour unions, and I will give every citizen a stake in capitalism by tax reduction to investors, also the small ones. And of course, she added, I will privatize and cut away the fat from the state. This was the essence of what she said.
And all this she did. But unemployment rose because of her economic policies, from five hundred thousand to a million, and from one million to a million and a half, and when there were two million unemployed I started to predict Thatcher´s downfall. But it never came even when unemployment rose to 3 million. What I forgot was that even if there were 3 million people unemployed in Britain there were many more millions at work and happy with their lot. And then I realized that society was changing or rather the way society was thinking was changing. This could not have happened in the post-war years – society would not have allowed it. And remember, Thatcher had said that there was no such thing as society, only individuals competing. Many of us saw this at the time as wishful thinking on her behalf; her supporters thought the prophet had spoken. And to some extent, they were right.
Of course, Mother Theresa is still with us somewhere, but the billionaire has definitely a stronger voice today than only a few years ago.
Capitalism and globalization hand in hand
International trade negotiations of recent times bear this witness, e.g. GATS, TTIP, TISA, CETA (some of which were never ratified), whether organized under the auspices of formal institutions like the World Trade Organization or in a cooperative packet between states and international capital. They have tended to undermine democratic structures and transfer control, whether political or juridical, from sovereign states to bodies where commercial interests play an ever-increasing role.
UN institutions are likewise on an increasing scale becoming dependant on corporate money, and here of course we are reminded of the dictum of the marketers, that there is no such thing as a free meal.
All this is part of the promised land of Klaus Schwab and friends who established the World Economic Forum just over fifty years ago, in 1971, meeting regularly in Davos in Switzerland, and step by step becoming more and more visible and vocal on the international stage. There is no beating about the bush in their statements, the sovereign state is said to be “obsolete” and furthermore that “a globalized world is best managed by a self selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments and civil society organizations.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum https://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/World_Economic_Forum_(WEF)
This of course reminds us that the colonial world, dominated by capitalist interests, has not left us. It merely presents itself in different disguises. https://www.gabormelli.com/RKB/World_Economic_Forum_(WEF)
This is where we are heading, and it is very much in line with other social and political developments. - although it will be interesting to follow radical movements in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere.
BRICS raises many interesting questions, but in the industrial part of the world, the trend has been in the same direction: Democracy is on the defensive, struggling against capitalism; morality is being undermined by markets, cooperation is giving way to competition, empathy to indifference, principled politics to politics without principles, humanism to geopolitical interests, Aristotle to Machiavelli.
Marcus Tullius Cicero and George Walker Bush
More than two thousand years ago the Roman philosopher and statesman Cicero said that in times of war, the law falls silent, “inter arma enim silent leges.” And we might add, so does the truth. Also the truth is silenced.
George Bush junior may not have been a philosopher nor Dick Cheeney, Rumsfeld, Bolton or Condoleezza Rice, but they all understood Cicero´s dictum when they declared global war on terrorism. This enabled them to do things which hitherto were not possible – enact a law on “homeland security”, have their Guantanamos and spy on all those who were seen to be a terrorist threat – and such a threat was seen to be everywhere, wherever there was a critical voice. Remember, we were at war!
Across the Atlantic, in Russia, Vladimir Putin was thrilled – as he was at the time fighting what he called the terrorist threat in Chechnya and elsewhere in the vast lands of Russia; he said he was at one with George Bush junior and wanted to join NATO.
Indeed, steps had been taken to improve relations between Russia and NATO with the establishment of the Permanent Joint Council—in essence the North Atlantic Council and Russia—to be chaired in rotation by Russia and NATO in line with the NATO-Russian Founding Act from 1997.
Partners or adversaries?
George Robertson, former Secretary General of NATO, recalls that Putin had said to him that he wanted Russia to become part of Western Europe; “it is our destiny” he had said according to Robertson. He also recalled that Putin had said that Russia should not have to stand in line for NATO membership with a “lot of countries that don´t matter”. (Elisabeth Braw, Foreign News, 19th January 2022: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/19/putin-russia-ukraine-nato-george-robertson/ )
What I find worth giving a thought is that seemingly US President Clinton was intent on improving relations with Russia while other forces within the US hierarchy may have been opposed, and although this remains pure speculation, one cannot but recall Dwight D. Eisenhower´s warnings about the “military industrial complex” which always seems to take a confrontational stance.
But soon NATO became busy invading Afghanistan, and then Iraq was invaded and later came regime change and attempts at regime change in other countries. And then of course there were other considerations, which are ever relevant – considerations, which have to do with power politics and raw materials.
Achievements must be recognized
Now this is our world. But as Pope Francis reminds us in his encyclical Laudato Si where he addresses the flaws and evils in the world society, injustice must never be seen to be invincible, because it is not. (Pope Francis, Encyclical Letter, Laudato Si, Chapter 2 II, Holy See, 2015)
Indeed, hope for the better is a good companion. It should not be forgotten that even though the United Nations and its institutions are not always as we wish they were and not up to our expectations, there have nevertheless been achievements to be proud of and outstanding individuals operating within the realm of the United Nations who are worthy of much praise.
From our discussions at this roundtable, it is my understanding that as regards structure it is generally agreed that the global institutional framework reflects far too much geopolitical realities of past and present power politics or colonialism as I would still call it, since democracy comes second place.
Changes needed
I think, an enlargement of the Security Council is needed to remedy this somewhat. The best thing of course would be to do away with the Security Council, but then we run the danger of the same thing happening as with the UN´s predecessor, The League of Nations, which was made impotent by the big powers boycotting and ignoring it.
So, this is my first point: Enlarge the Security Council!
My second point is of no less importance and has to do with the mandate of the Security Council now being above the law, de facto able to ignore international conventions and agreements if it so desires: The mandate of the Security Council must in other words be limited.
Thirdly, the Security Council must be made accountable, its decision always having to be subjected to consent in the General Assembly.
In the fourth place, heed should be taken of what Christopher Black describes as a web of “quasi-legal structures unaccountable to anyone but which make sovereign nations and individuals accountable to them, and despite some good work,” he goes on to say, “result in the limitation of democracy and sovereignty of nation states”. The institutions Christopher Black thus refers to, are military, economic, financial, social, health, and human rights organizations as well as criminal tribunals (Christoher Black, abstract for the Round Table Consultation of The International Progress Organization on Responsibility in International Relations, Vienna, September 2023). In my mind it is imperative that these institutions be made accountable in some way. This of course is easier said than done as we know for instance in the case of the International Criminal Court where the main perpetrators, globally, do not recognize the mandate of the Court. Here again there must be some kind of settlement or agreement, bringing the military powers to the table.
No more private financing
We now await some kind of binding directives from the World Health Organization. Here we are on a slippery ground with corporate interests embedded in the financing of the institution. It is of essential importance to get rid of all private financing from the WHO and other UN institutions.
To go a step further with the story of the billionaire who told Mother Theresa that he would not so much as lift a finger to do what she was doing for the victims of leprosy in the Kolkata gutters even for a million dollars, it must be said that not a million dollars are needed to alleviate the plight of the poor in the world, but billions and trillions of dollars together with fundamental structural changes. But even if we had such sums at our disposal the question would remain what should be the guiding principles and values.
Here the institutional world has been divided since the cold war period on whether to draw a line between civil and political rights on the one hand and social, economic, and cultural rights on the other. This dividing line materialized in different conventions on human rights operated within the framework of the United Nations. It is not unlikely that these conventions will gradually become fully integrated. It is important that this integration takes place in an acceptable and balanced way, respecting social, economic, and cultural rights no less than civil and political rights.
But changes in conventions, institutions and frameworks do not take us far unless there is social and political support. In that regard, some fundamental changes have been taking place in the world, and all too often not in a positive direction - changes that do not make the work of the social engineer easy.
The world map must be redrawn
If I were an engineer with unlimited power to manoeuvre I would suggest that the map of the world be redrawn, thinking that 50 states would be better than one United States, and I would disintegrate all the big powers - China, Russia, India if not more of the large states - and the entire map of Africa and Middle East would need to be redrawn not to mention Western Europe where there are aspirations to make the European Union a big power block, paramount to a superpower. I would hastily revert such ideas and revoke a good idea from some years ago of a Europe of the regions, within a looser union; a Europe with more flexible boundaries accommodating for an independent Catalonia and Scotland, Basque country, all according to popular will.
The one (if not the only) thing all the states of the world can agree on is the status quo of present boundaries, however arbitrarily these boundaries came into being. One only has to look at the map of Africa and the Middle East to be reminded that most of the borders were drawn - by the use of a ruler - in London, Paris, and other seats of colonial power. Most of these boundaries are there irrespective of culture, language, and historical heritage.
The problem with the permanence or unchangeability of boundaries is that they reflect a frozen status quo from some point in history. Not only is it to be taken into account that this particular status quo was, as a rule, forced upon societies, often from outside, but, as Erica Daes, former UN Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples has rightly stated: “Social and economic conditions are ever-changing in our complex world, as are the cultures and aspirations of all peoples. For different peoples to be able to live together peacefully, without exploitation or domination – whether it is within one state or two neighbouring states – they must continually renegotiate the terms of their relationships.” (Alfred de Zayas, Building A Just World Order, p. 117, Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2021)
“Responsibility to protect” reformulated
The danger always remains that the institutional world will reflect geopolitical power as it stands and hence the likelihood is that the world continues to be a victors´ world.
The core principle of the idea of Responsibility to Protect should never be abandoned. The world should of course see it as its duty to protect people from war crimes and genocides, within the boundaries of states, as was the original idea. But democratic rights of societies and states should also be protected. Thus, the principle of Responsibility to Protect should never be allowed to become a tool of geopolitics as indeed has been the case in reality, with brutal regime changes or attempts at these on false premises (in Iraq, Libya and many others). Hence, what is needed, in the words of Alfred de Zayas, is a reformulation or broadening of the principle in order that it may “protect populations from war, military interventions and structural violence.” (Alfred de Zayas, Building A Just World Order, p. 208, Clarity Press, Atlanta, 2021) In other words, the principle should offer protection against intervention and manipulation of geopolitical stake-holders.
Not another Versailles!
Now the idea is to punish Putin before the International Criminal Court and make Russia pay war reparations for the invasion of Ukraine. Of course, it is not Vladimir Putin who will pay but the Russian people. Does this not remind us of Versailles in 1919 where the Germans were forced to accept that all crimes committed in the First World War and the war itself were their fault and nobody else´s and that they - and they alone - had to pay for it? We all read in our history books how this helped the Nazis and created a fertile soil for them to tell the German people that they were up against an unjust world and that now they had to fight back.
At their summit in Reykjavik last spring leaders of the member states of the Council of Europe decided to have another go at Versailles, this time exchanging Germans for Russians.
If it is felt that international organizations, including, and not the least, international courts, operate on the command of those who are victorious, who are winners, at any given period, then we will not achieve what is meant to be achieved by any such court, namely, to turn vengeance into just retribution. On the contrary, vengeance will be the end-product; prejudice and hatred will prevail.
We will never be able to remedy flaws in the international institutional world unless we restore respect for democracy and that we will not do unless we have the billionaire from Kolkata step aside and give humanitarian, egalitarian and democratic considerations the floor.
-----
Athygli er vakin á því að hægt er að gerast áskrifandi að fréttabréfi þessarar heimasíðu á slóð sem hér er að finna: https://www.ogmundur.is/
Fréttabréfið er sent aðeins endrum og eins til áskrifenda þeim að kostnaðarlausu að sjálfsögð