16 Iunie 2019
Textul de mai jos este o analiză conservatoare din 2005 despre necesitatea reformării și eficientizării ONU. Este o formă scurtă deoarece am scos capitolul referitor la Uniunea Europeană pe care voi încerca să-l redau separat într-o postare viitoare.
International Political Science Department
– 2005 –
Reforming the United Nation
By Mircea Popescu
The hard-liner Iranian president, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in his speech at the United Nation Assembly for the 60th anniversary, that the UN must ensure that all members have „equal rights.”
Outside the UN Headquarters twenty thousand Iranians condemned the lack of democracy, the barbaric atrocities against the political prisoners in Iran.
The point is: how you can pretend to have equal rights with others without to have equal obligations? How you can speak about international democratization if you don’t know what the democracy is?
Part I. The analysis of today UN stereotypes
If you don’t grant full civil rights at home, but you ask for international equal rights; is like you build a house beginning with the roof without to have foundation and walls. You have an umbrella for raining days, not a house.
But this is what many countries want from the “Big Club UN,” just an umbrella and a source of benefices, a sort of International Salvation Army. These countries want a place to take, not to give.
Let see what principles are the guidance for such attitude.
1. Principle of non-intervention in a sovereign state
Many non-democratic countries, or even countries which have strong political or economic ties and interest in the region, became the fierce protectors of other countries with authoritarian or even tyrannical government. To acquire this, they oppose to the international community in taking punitive actions against the oppressive regimes.
As a much known example is the opposition of many countries to the war in Iraq, where a criminal regime crushed any opposition and prohibited even to talk about human rights. None of the opposing countries to the intervention were concern about this disturbing reality: thousands of Kurds were killed by lethal arms as cyanide gas at Halabja in 1988; the Shiite’s uprising in 1991 was crushed in blood; the political prisoners were tortured and ultimately killed.
Recently, we are spectators to the reluctance of Russia, China and other Non-Aligned Movement to support a tougher action against the Iranian aggressive regime that threaten with the proliferation of the technology of enrichment uranium to the Arabic states.
Why these countries opposed when they know about crimes or danger of nuclear catastrophe?
They won’t create a precedent of international punishment for the human rights violation, because their governments behave in the same aggressive or dictatorial style.
Also, the major players like Russia, China want to change the power relationship in the international system from the uni-polar system to a multi-polar system. Therefore, they try to preserve their political, Geo-strategic or economical interest and influence in the Third World nations by acting on the diplomatic battlefield.
And what is the pretext to such fierce opposition?
Well, the “Principle of non-intervention in the internal affair of a sovereign and independent country” sounds very convincing.
But, what if you know that the neighbor next door abuses and even threatens the life of his children or his wife? Do you become suddenly blind and deaf only to avoid being involved in some way to save people? Well, maybe this is your problem, but don’t try to stop me to take action.
|
Diaspora si Reintregirea 