This is a blog dedicated to a personal interpretation of political news of the day. I attempt to be as knowledgeable as possible before commenting and committing my thoughts to a day's communication.

Thursday, July 14, 2016

The Resolute, Honourable and Steadfast Members of the UN's Security Council 

Map showing the member states of the United Nations[a]

Well thank heavens for the presence of the United Nations. Its purpose and its presence, to calm an unruly world, to sue for peace, to rally to the call of upholding human rights globally, to preach the virtues of pacifism over military hostilities geared toward proliferating sanity and thoughtfulness over the passions of suspicion, territorial ambitions, xenophobia, racial, ethnic and religious divisions otherwise rife in the world of humankind.

Security Council Considers Situation in South Sudan
UN Photo/Manuel Elias 
There is the sobering and powerful presence of world powers, East and West, to judge when interventions appear required to stabilize a world on the edge of violent disarray. The trust we place in the integrity of countries such as Britain, France, United States, Russia and China, sitting on the permanent UN Security Council counsels us to entrust that their joint decision-making in a spirit of co-operation is meant to safeguard world affairs.

Except for the reality, of course, that of the five powerful nations entrusted with reaching reasoned agreement on which course of action should be undertaken by the United Nations, including on the vital issue of "responsibility to protect", what occurs is seldom consensus, with Britain, France and the United States concurring and Russia and China dissenting. This is something the world has become accustomed to.

What has undeniably complicated matters of late, however, is that those two resolutely defiant and entitled members of the Security Council, both Russia and China -- both communist-inspired as opposed to the other three's dedication to democracy's rule of law and social assurances -- have surrendered to their bullying instincts, viewing themselves with entitlements far surpassing those of their neighbours.

Russia, throwing its considerable military weight and intimidating pressures at its neighbours in Eastern Europe, and when West Europe chastises Moscow for its presumption that it is entitled to scoop territory out of its neighbours' geographic sovereignty by imposing sanctions, turning its baleful implied threats upon the rest of Europe. And on the home front, informing Russian patriots that once again their country is being singled out for punishment from a hostile world.

And then there is China, dealt an international legal blow by the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration which has ruled that China has no basis in international law to expand maritime claims that have alarmed its neighbours. And that, moreover, the Philippines' exclusive economic zone had been violated by China's claims of historical entitlement in the South China Sea. Entitlements that have pitted China against the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei.

The court's judgement would be accepted by any other nation but China, defiantly proclaiming that it is irrelevant and China has no intention of meekly withdrawing its claims. The immense Chinese population that has lapped up their regime's assurances that China is only taking ownership of what is due it, views the conclusion to the Philippines' appeal to the court as intrinsically corrupt, a global effort to defraud China of its entitlements and rights of territorial ownership.

China and Russia both are wedded to harmony at home; far less interested let alone involved in securing harmonious relations with the rest of the world. They cannot be regarded as assets to the United Nations as far as doing their part to give the authority of gravitas and fairness in world affairs to ensure that conflicts are kept as much as possible, to a minimum.

By the very nature of their reliance on threat and coersion each is responsible for ensuring world affairs are tenuous at best, fraught with the danger of violent collisions at the very worst.


  • to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  • to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  • to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  • to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,


  • to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
  • to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  • to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  • to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

Labels: , , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home

() Follow @rheytah Tweet