Over the past few weeks, leaders from almost 200 countries have been meeting at the United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York City for the 70th annual meeting of General Assembly (the regular session runs from September to December every year).
Each annual General Assembly provides a forum for discussion of a wide range of international issues that fall under the umbrella of the UN Charter. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon encouraged the 193-member body to look back at the history of the UN and all that has been, as they proceed to discuss complicated issues.
He added that, “My thoughts today are especially with the people of Syria – those inside the country facing terrible violence, and those who have fled, desperately seeking a safe haven and a better life.”
Later, as I listened to the clash between President Barack Obama of the United States of America (USA) and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, over Syria, it was becoming clear that the feud goes deeper than the refugee crisis. It was more about the geopolitical interests of “bigger powers”.
As the saying goes, when two elephants fight it is not only the grass that suffers, but also the truth. Although Russia and the United States view the Islamic State (ISIS) militants as a common enemy, Obama and his allies had long placed Syria on its radar for regime change.
A U.S.-led coalition is currently conducting airstrikes against the Islamic State. ISIS falls in the category of a non-state armed group with an ideology that is clearly in contradiction to the interest of both USA and Russia.
A couple of days ago, Russia also launched airstrikes against ISIS. Some commentators argue that the Russian assistance to the Syrian army is fully legal and is taking place in coordination with Syrian forces, whereas the “Coalition” just bombed the country (including infrastructure and its army fighting terrorism) in violation of international law.
The irony is that both the US and Russia are invoking international law and the importance of the UN in justifying their interventions in Syria.
Yet Russia did not exercise its veto during the illegal invasion of Iraq by the USA in 2003, as well as the murder of Muammar Gaddafi and the destabilisation of Libya in 2011, with the help of some African countries. Therefore, the intervention of Russia in Syria is equally more in defence of its national interest and security as opposed to international law.
In his speech, Putin reminded world leaders that “the establishment of the United Nations, was in our country, in Yalta…” He was referring to the Yalta Conference, which took place in a Russian resort town in the Crimea from February 4–11, 1945, during World War Two.
At Yalta, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill generally agreed that future governments of the Eastern European nations bordering the Soviet Union should be “friendly to the Soviet regime”.
In their discussions on the future of the UN, all parties agreed to “an American plan (the name ‘United Nations’ was coined by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt) concerning voting procedures in the Security Council, which had been expanded to five permanent members, following the inclusion of France. Each of these permanent members was to hold a veto on decisions before the Security Council.”
It was however in October 1943 at the Moscow Conference attended by the governments of USA, United Kingdom, Russia and China that the proposal for the present United Nations was mooted,
“That they recognise the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organisation, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving states, and open to membership by all such states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”
This principle of sovereign equality applies not only to the USA and Russia, but also to all other members of the UN, including Syria. The refugee crisis that has engulfed Europe is the result of the flagrant disregard of the UN Charter.
It is clear therefore that at stake is not necessarily the welfare of Syrians, but rather control over the region’s energy resources and to gain geo-strategic advantage.
It is therefore reasonable to characterise the above as a resurgence of some kind of neo-Cold War, wherein we are likely to see alignments between powers in the Western Bloc and powers in the Eastern Bloc.
On their part, countries in the developing economies, including in Africa, will be caught in the middle trying to be friends to all in order to survive. This, if unchallenged, would appear to be the new world disorder.