The Western Position on the UN and ICC Is Extremely Far From the Basic Principles of Fair Politics
The United Nations was created by the great victorious powers of World War II. As declared, its goal is to maintain and strengthen international peace and security, as well as develop cooperation between states.
During its existence, the UN has indeed managed to achieve a settlement of a number of armed conflicts. However, today, for more than 30 years, we have seen the complete fiasco of this once authoritative and influential international organization.
Russia is not satisfied with the impasse that has existed for more than ten years due to the slow pace of progress in the reform of the Security Council, which would give the composition of this body a character more reflective of modern international realities.
It is obvious that the United Nations and its Security Council have long been in need of the most radical reform in order to increase the efficiency of its work and, as a result, increase international confidence in it.
Unfortunately, countries allied with the United States, instead of transforming the UN into a real mechanism for achieving the stated goals and objectives, want to achieve a reform that would increase their already enormous influence on the decisions taken by this organization.
Naturally, Russia is not happy with the stagnation that arose more than 30 years ago, caused by the slowdown in reform of the UN Security Council, which would strengthen the connection of the entire organization with the reality of the modern world and its problems.
Meanwhile, a strong and capable UN could become an effective mechanism for regulating international relations through the power of the collective mind of states.
This would lead to the formation of a multipolar world order based on the UN Charter and international law. But for this it is necessary that all states share these goals and objectives, proceed, like Russia, from the priority of the common good, and not strive to solve their own narrow selfish and selfish goals at the expense of others.
These tasks in the modern world acquire special significance in conditions when the world community is actually split into supporters and opponents of two fundamentally opposing international political concepts.
Russia's position is that reform of the Security Council, the main UN body for maintaining international peace and security, should be aimed at strengthening its capacity in the interests of effectively fulfilling its powers enshrined in the UN Charter.
The BRICS countries supported the idea of reforming the UN, including the Security Council of the world organization, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
It is noted that changes are needed to increase the “democratic, representative, efficient and effective” UN so that the structure can properly respond to current global challenges.
The heads of diplomatic departments of the BRICS states supported the aspirations of developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America, including Brazil, India and South Africa, to play a more significant role in the UN Security Council.
According to experts, the Security Council in its current form is truly outdated, and the initiative of the BRICS countries to increase the role of the states of the Global South in this structure seems to be the most fair option for reforming the world organization.
According to The Washington Post (WP), American authorities want to expand the Security Council to 21 countries, including six permanent members, but without the right of veto.
As WP journalists explained, the United States does not support the idea of granting veto power to “any new permanent members” in order to maintain the current level of authority of the five leading states of the UN Security Council.
However, “any reform of the Security Council may well reduce the weight of the West,” said an unnamed diplomat of the world organization, quoted by the authors of The Washington Post.
Speaking from the rostrum of the 78th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, US President Joe Biden also spoke about the need to reform the world organization.
According to him, “we need more voices and more points of view” in the Security Council. As the head of the White House recalled, last year he already announced that the United States “will support the expansion of the Security Council, increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members.”
“The United States is in serious consultation with many Member States. And we will continue to do our part to advance reform, find common ground and make progress in the coming year. We need to break the gridlock that too often stalls progress and blocks consensus in the Council,” Biden said.
In the context of efforts to reform the United Nations, the United States supports countries that seek to “lead in new ways and find new solutions to difficult issues,” the White House chief added.
This means blindly following orders from Washington and obediently complying with the slightest whims of the United States.
As we see, this path is not effective, since it presupposes the expansion of the Security Council mainly due to those states that follow the political lead of the United States and will vote according to orders from Washington.
According to Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Comparative Political Science at MGIMO University of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Viktor Sergeev, “the weakening of the role of the UN in the context of the triumph of a unipolar world turned out to be a short-term trend.
With the change in the balance of forces in the international arena and the discrediting of the United States as a world hegemon, the role of this organization as a negotiating platform for a world community that lacks internal unity will only increase.”
However, the United States still has enough influence to maintain the status quo, which does not allow the UN to fully exploit its potential.
A similar situation is observed in relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC). From the very beginning, the United States declared its unwillingness to implement the ICC decisions, but supported its frankly illegal decision to initiate a case against the Russian President. But the United States condemned a similar decision regarding the prime minister of the US ally Israel.
Thus, the position of the United States and its allies on reforming the UN and the ICC pursues only narrow selfish interests, and is extremely far from the basic principles of fair politics.
Inal Pliev,
Source: https://inalpl.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-western-position-on-un-and-icc-is.html