Friday, July 11, 2008
Russia and China veto hope for Zimbabwe
The United Nations Security Council voted to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe for its brutal treatment of its people, but Russia and China vetoed the resolution. The reason? Zimbabwe's oppression was purely internal:
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the sanctions plan for Zimbabwe would have taken the U.N. beyond its mandate by "artificially elevating them to the level of a threat" to international peace and security.
China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, whose nation is one of Zimbabwe's major trading partners, also expressed fears of nation-tinkering and said Zimbabwe was best left to conduct its own talks on how to resolve its political crisis.
"The development of the situation in Zimbabwe until now has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs," he said. "It will unavoidably interfere with the negotiation process."
Commentary
The important thing to remember about the United Nations is that its real point is to preserve states, not just in the abstract but the actual governments that constitute today's status quo. Neither Putin's Russia nor Communist China will endorse any precedent that the UNSC might lawfully interfere with the internal matters of any member state, no matter how disgusting its government. So, if you do not believe that the preservation of existing governments, no matter how hideous, is a good purpose for the United Nations, you need to fall back on one of two other justifications. First, that we need a forum for governments to speak to each other when bilateral communications are not feasible for one or another reason. Second, that the various humanitarian agencies perform a sort of "super NGO" function that is more effective or comprehensive than conventional NGOs can do. While both justifications might be reason enough to support the United Nations, neither establishes it as a source of legitimacy for international intervention against, for instance, genocide.
2 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jul 12, 03:23:00 AM:
The world lost a great opportunity when the framers of the UN charter decided to eliminate any qualification for membership. I forget who proposed it but the USA should walk away from the UN and start a United Democratic Nations, with strict membership guidelines.
#1. Your government must be a lot better than Zimbabwe's.
#2. Your leader can not have won a nobel peace prize, like Arafat.
#3. Your must not allow the honor killing of your women, or men.
You know, basic stuff like that.
By , at
Sat Jul 12, 12:15:00 PM:
Another political failure for the administration, do you think?
In a larger sense, as much as Americans might hope that the UN can evolve beyond cocktail parties and an institutional life in NYC/Geneva, it should be clear it has grown to be nothing more than a tool to be used. The UN contains nothing noble within it's make-up, and no stirring idea enlivens it's daily activities; it is merely a physical place to gather and a convenient forum for forming temporary alliances when the circumstances are right. Bilateral relations remain at the core of foreign relations, and it's there are the substantive work important to world influence happens. Which, as much as I hate to admit it, is why we need those panty-wearing anglophile Yalies running around the State Department.
