Friday, Nov 04, 2011

Gulf News

In the run up to the General Assembly at the United Nations, the hot topic that was on everybody’s lips was the Palestinian bid for statehood. Television networks in the US focused their attention on Palestine, where the media steered the attention of viewers towards the opinion of the Israelis, who made it clear that they were holding a strong stance against the bid and wanted the US to back them up.

Having been at the United Nations at this crucial time during the General Assembly and having witnessed the ins and outs of the political game, I saw that when it comes down to hard-pressed issues the UN is ultimately governed by the Permanent Five at the Security Council — regardless of what the other 10 Security Council members may vote on.

It does not matter whether the 190-plus UN member states unanimously agree to pass a resolution. At the end of the day the decision is left to the Permanent Five (P-5), which is made up of US, UK, France, Russia and China, to pass or to veto any resolution — and that decision is solely based upon their own interests.

Interacting with country representatives to the UN, it could be clearly seen that the majority of UN members were in favour of establishing a Palestinian statehood.

Vicious circle

Some UN officials admitted that in political times like this, the UN body is clearly undermined by the P-5.

The UN have to wake up and realise that the world is not the same as it was in 1946, and the victors that won Second World War are not the only key players in the world today. African and Asian countries are playing a major role in the economic and social landscape, and in order for the Security Council to change its image and stop behaving like a theatre stage, it should dissolve the concept of the Permanent Five and restructure itself to suit the needs of modern times.

One official at the UN was quick to say that the idea of restructuring the Security Council has been on the table for over 10 years, but no progress has been made. “It’s like going around in a vicious circle because we want a change to happen, but of course, none of them will agree to have their powers diminished.”

In light of this, it is plain for all to see that the UN is hypocritical in its policies and that it is not serving the purpose for which it was intended. Take the developments that took place recently, where the UN member states agreed to take a stand against Israel and sanction it because of expanding illegal colonies along the West Bank. Sadly, that decision could not go through because one country on the Security Council — the US — vetoed the decision.

One senior staff member at the UN, who has been working at the organisation for over two decades, admitted that the body is not only full of hypocrites but backstabbers too. Such a statement forces you to think twice about the organisation’s purpose and role in world politics when its own staff fail to see it in a positive light.

After several weeks of heated discussions with UN staff members over policy decisions, sprinkled with some media briefings that were aimed to encourage the practice of democracy in “dictatorial” countries, the topic of Syria finally surfaced.

The main question going through my mind was that if the UN was so quick to pass a resolution against Libya and send Nato forces to protect civilians, why was the same technique not applied to Syria.

The debate on the current affairs of the Syrian government was gently tip-toed around and discussed in politically correct terminology, but from what I and my 13 other fellow journalists deduced, is that countries are protected based on who their friends are.

China and Russia were the two Security Council members who vetoed a resolution for action to be taken against Syria. But as the presenter of the media briefing explained to us, China soon became wary of its own image and realised that if they stood by their position for too long, then the western powers will believe that China is an advocate for torture and oppression.

China was then quick to change sides, and now it is only Russia standing alone by its decision. If Russia gains by being an ally of Syria, what is the US gaining from being a close friend of Israel?

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas made a wise decision by going to the General Assembly at the UN, since it was the UN that started the conflict by passing Resolution No 181, which partitioned Palestine in 1947. So if the UN had the power to divide Palestine, doesn’t it also mean that they have the power to find a peaceful solution to this ongoing saga?

It seems there is no longer any room for perfect sense in this imperfect world of ours.

By Mariam M. Al Serkal? Staff Writer

Gulf News 2011. All rights reserved.