Political events on International spectrum suggest the role and responsibility of UN for taking action in accordance with the provision of UN- charter to tackle the situation for fostering fraternity and prevailing peace in the interest of mankind amongst the Nations.
The name of UN comes ahead to solve the bewildering problems of political landscape in terms of urgency. The tall-talk of ‘Rule of Law’ and of ‘Democracy’ appear cracking intermittently with clear cleavage of causative restlessness of human beings and humanity in the present set of international affairs. How far the aphorism ‘’MIGHT IS RIGHT ‘’ correct for all the ages and all the times in view of the emerging interest to grab power by nations? The power here naturally includes nuclear power to subdue others. This is up-roarious question of alarming gravity of the recent days to be thought of.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’. This was said in the form of proverb by John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (1834- 1902) but it is truly applicable for all the times, and best applicable specially for the recent days of Unipolar World. Power and ‘struggle for power’ to have more and more has been too dear to power-hungry-politicians of nations without any basis of justifiability. The belief that democratic threads used for ruling a country under ‘’ Rule of Law ‘’ mitigates the rigours of arbitrary arrogance in addition to UN-working as the custodian for member-nations but the eventful series of deplorable news whittled down the sanctity of the belief. UN being the prominent International body is working from 1945, and its charter being signed by 50 states (original signatories) at San Francisco (USA) came into force on October 24, 1945. Today its member-nations are 193 out of 243 countries of the world.
Self-acquired power by five permanent members of The Security Council under UN-Charter is commonly called as ‘’ Veto Power ’’ although the word ‘’veto’’ has nowhere been used therein. With stored skill of designing special power in disguise, the phrase ‘’…including the concurring votes of the permanent members…’’ under Article 27 has been coined and used for acquiring dominant supremacy over all other member- nations. US used its veto 32 times to shield Israel to forfeit the resolution drafted against Israel. ‘’One man, -one vote’’ rule was ultimately approved in England by The Great Reforms- Act,1832; and in USA the rule took the final shape by the Supreme Court in the historic case of ‘’ Reynolds V. Sims ( 1964)’’.
Likewise the word ‘’ Vote ‘’ stands to have similar effect and attributes in case of all member-nations of UN to decide and resolve any dispute by the Security Council. The over-riding nature and effect of the vote of its five (5) permanent members is a departure of the spirit of ‘’Due Process clause’’ of American Constitution, and ‘’Rule of Law’’ of British Constitutional practice. Every Constitution of every democratic country of the present world talks of equality and equal protection of Laws nevertheless UN Charter’s Veto Power of its Five Permanent Members being sustained from 1945 till now is manifestation of malign magnanimity.
Basically a Nation is nothing else than a group of persons on a territory of land being administered, acknowledged and ruled accordingly. A Nation is a Legal Person similar to that of a real person in matters of acquiring Rights and Duties without servitude and subordination to anyone else. The value of vote of a Nation for resolving a dispute under UN-charter should be equal to all other member-nations ( including Five Big…) without discrimination. The gulf of difference of the vote-value of UN-members while exercising Veto by any one of the five Big is too wide for practical measures of solving Global problems. It is gross ‘inequality in the equality under disguise of power play. In case a body, organised and legally formed to serve some purpose fails and become dysfunctional its charter should either be amended or it should be replaced accordingly in the interest of human cause failing which it will invite misuse of Veto Power to kill the Trust of people at large reposed thereof. We can make retrospection in tune with eventful world for ascertaining the facts in the matter.
Giving a feeler, Javier Perez de Cuellar (The then Secretary General of the Security Council) in early 1987 reprimanded the Nations (5 BIG) for the misuse of Veto power:-
"The Veto Power is not something given to them generously by the membership of the United Nations. The Veto Power implies that they have to work in order to reach agreement for the peaceful solution of the International Problems."
The present Article, inter alia, is the resulting counter effect of the latest warning of American President ( Mr.Barack Obama ), given on Sept.25, 2012 that US ‘’ will do what we must..’’ to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He charged Iran for propping up Syria. In his formal recent address to the UN-General Assembly he warned Iran to prevent alleged Nuclear Proliferation. Iranian President ( Ahmadi Nejad ) replied confidently that his country is ready to defend. He clarified the fact that Israel is a nuclear armed- fake regime shielded by US. The fact of shielding Israel is, amongst others, clear because Armada of US and British Navel-power is active in the Persian Gulf. This shows that Israel is considering pre-emptive war against Iran. The situation arising out thereof appears grave and grim.
It will not be irrelevant to adduce evidence here that an important Conference was held in Vienna on Sept.18, 2011 whereat a resolution was passed against Israel with common consensus , and Israel was badly criticised for its atomic programme. Iran hailed the resolution naming it as ‘’ Glorious Movement’’. This was a major setback for Israel and US both.
President Obama is 44th President of America, and is commonly known as a man of promise in plight of global grumbling. The distinguished news- paper ‘’Washington Post’’, dated Sept.13, 2012 projected facets of fiasco of Obama with supported facts in these words:-
"………Obama’s lack of progress in changing the US-image in the region from his inability to make headway on resolving ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, despite promises to make it a priority….,( alongwith Libya-attack) represents challenge for Obama".
The political scenario of the world is changing fast to make him felt for mending his way and his administration under a reconciling policy of fairness. He from the very outset of his holding office is trying to seek a new beginning for solving the long awaited Arab -Problems allegedly to restore cordial relation with them. In his quest western leaders extended support to strengthen the so called ‘’ Arab Spring ‘’ of democracy of western style. Surprisingly contrary to that ‘’ the expected spring turned into autumn’’ in view of the deploring set of developing affairs. Egypt became hostile and Libya (although victory has been allegedly acclaimed) turned inimical against US-expectation.
The threat of Israel to attack Iran, and counter of Iran to defend herself appear alarming in conflict of ‘safeguarding nations by the scourge of war’, guaranteed under the preamble of UN-Charter. President Obama of US and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel came close to each others on March 5, 2012 to talk face to face by discussing the political situation of Iran and Middle East. The President laid emphasis that Iran must not have nuclear power, and the Prime Minister reiterated that time is running out to attack Iran. The anxious consideration of attacking is definitely bewildering, disgusting and perplexing. Obama has to select one thing out of the two. He in an un-decisive obscurity told:-
"I think that Israel Government recognises that……………… I don’t bluff. I also don’t go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think that both the Iranian and Israel Governments recognise that US says it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapon, we mean what we say. "
The name of Iran is being put forth repeatedly to international news since 2003 by western media under the alleged heading of ‘’ Nuclear non-proliferation.’’ This has a nexus to the past experience of Iran when Iraq under Saddam’s regime invaded Iran in Sept.1980 thinking that the imposed war would be easy for him to win because Iran just came into power ( in the year 1979 ) under Khomeini’s regime. The war lasted in Aug.1988 with an estimate total of 1 million dead and 1.7 million wounded apart from heavy loss of civilian-property, petrol and Governmental machineries. Why did Security Council of UN not resolve to impose fine ( war- fine ) on Iraq to compensate the loss for the reason that it is Iraq who invaded, and Iran who defended? Historical records are evident that war-fines have been levied on the invader-nation, and likewise it should also be followed similar to ‘’Doctrine of Precedence’’ in case of Iran as well.
The debate of "Nuclear Non-Proliferation" in the case of Iran invites the study of the concerned law on the point. Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was designed by the nations having Nuclear Power to check the wide- spread of ‘nuclear-weapons-technology’ for maintaining nuclear disarmament. There are 190 parties ( nations) including five permanent members of the Security Council. Four countries ( India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel ) have already declared to have nuclear weapons but they are not parties to the Treaty (NPT). In good faith Iran signed the Treaty ( NPT ) in the mid of 1968 and ratified it accordingly, and as such it came into effect on March 5, 1970. Israel refused and repeatedly refused to sign it in view of his ulterior aggressive motive.
Any person having preliminary knowledge of Law of Treaty can easily be apprised of the fact that ‘’International Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty ’’ ( NPT ) is full of flaws and technical shortcomings. NPT came into force in the year 1968, and, ipso facto, NPT assumes that a country which already has nuclear weapons prior to 1968 has full right to have nuclear weapons of any kind with any degree of accumulation in abundance. This is somewhat similar to the notion that a person who already has unaccountable wealth will have the right to keep on having it unchecked, and the poor person who tries to have little wealth for his dignified survival will have to be checked, inspected, questioned and put to the ordeal of repeated ‘sanctions’. Why a developing Nation can have no right to have the items which a developed Nation has already? Can US or Israel quote a single example where Iran did use any aggression on any nation in the recent past? If not why Iran is suspected to use nuclear weapons against any one as aggressor?
Israel has open policy of ‘’ OPACITY ’’ to his Nuclear proliferation at the connivance of US. UN is no better than a mute spectator in the matter of Israel’s arsenal, inspected by IAEA. The main Tri-pillars of NPT are non-proliferation, disarmament and using nuclear technology peacefully. Iran has a maintainable defence that it has right to use nuclear reactor for peaceful purpose.
US while hosting an International Conference in Washington on April 14, 2012 put its stand on the point through Obama:- "…I do think that as part of NPT our obligation, as the longest nuclear power in the world, is to take steps to reduce our nuclear stockpile… As far as Israel goes I am not going to comment on their programme.’’ US appears extremely helpless and weak to get Israel signed NPT till now but it becomes very strong to press and pursue other nations to sign NPT , and to keep on increasing sanctions after sanctions under fragile apprehension of proliferation of nuclear weapons to be used against his vested interest. Henry Ford’s favourite taunt reminds the paradox: ‘’ WARS ARE THE JEWS’ HARVEST ’’ on this conjuncture of irreconcilable irony of US-Israel duo.
The problem of PLO and deliberate abeyance to solve it by UN is another setback to the credibility of UN. PLO was formed in the year 1964 , and nothing concrete could come up to their satisfactory solace till now. How far UN becomes functionally active in the hands of Big Powers for their interest, and how far it becomes dysfunctional for other nations when interest of Big Powers comes in conflict?
The recent film " Innocence of Muslims" has triggered protest against US in almost every country on this Earth. The American filmmaker, Nakoula Basseley was hiding but has now been arrested in San Francisco. The protest on Sept.11, 2012 went so high that a group of Muslims became furious at the portrayal of the film and fired on US-Ambassador (Christopher Stevens) at Benghazi (Libya) killing him and three others dead. They also tore American flag into pieces and burnt it to ashes. These protests all around the world brought another series of setback to US.
Very Recently ( Aug.26 to 31, 2012 ) 16th NAM ( Non Aligned Movement ) -Summit was held and hosted by Iran in Tehran wherein leaders of 120 countries including 24 presidents, 3 Kings, 8 Prime Ministers, and 50 Foreign Ministers attended to make it a success. Iran will hold Presidency of NAM for three years from 2013 to 2015 till the next summit in Venezuela. Iran naturally got moral support in NAM as a result of its success.
Noam Chomsky (American Linguist and statesman of very high repute) published his Article under the title ‘’What are Iranian Intentions’’ which clarifies the attending facts in un-mistake words:
‘’Attack on Iran means World War III. Majority of Americans recognised Iran’s right to its Nuclear energy programme. Washington-Officials and western media launched a massive propaganda onslaught against Iran. Powerful countries like Russia, China, India and 120 member-nations of NAM oppose US- policy on Iran. ‘’ Iran has refuted the allegation of Nuclear Proliferation and argued that being a signatory to NPT and also being a member of IAEA ( International Atomic Energy Agency ) Iran is entitled to develop and to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. On the other hand Israel being the sole possessor of nuclear arsenal in Middle East is not questioned by US although Israel has more than 200 sections of Missiles containing chemical explosive.
The recent news being flashed by ' New York Times
'(dated Oct.6, 2012) further corroborates the testimony of '' Mishandling Syrian problems by US ''. Helping rebels by heavy arms and artillery against a country-rule whose policy and political prosody do not coincide with the power-play of the ''BIG.....'' is itself an act of rebellious regression of pungent disapproval; and more so when the act of helping rebels is under the deceptive word ''Syria uprising''. The word '' uprise'' does mean to rise to a higher position. How far Egypt, Tunisia and Libya have been raised to higher positions in general terms of amenities, peace and security of life of common citizens ( except few with vested interest ) by this '' uprising.''?
US itself has partly confessed its wrong stand on Syria by helping rebels when it said '' we are looking at ways to put in place practices to prevent this type of weapon from falling into wrong hands.'' Hindustan Times
(dated Oct.8, 2012 ) affirming the news of '' New York times '' published that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are now discouraged to keep on supporting rebels of Syria as US has stopped arming rebels with heavy weapons. US brought resolution three times in the Security Council of UN for imposing heavier sanctions on Syria but Russia and China have vetoed rightly to curb the unipolarity of power for a balanced world.
The twin pillars of tasks of all International Bodies, entrusted to monitor nations of the world for co-existence, have been 1- Safeguarding Security and 2- Prevailing Peace; and exactly ‘Covenant of The League of Nations’ and ‘United Nations Charter’ are based on the twin support thereof. Lofty talk of its members to pose success become meaninglessly hollow if the two aforesaid objectives ( safeguarding security , and prevailing peace ) are not achieved in time by the aggrieved nation to his just satisfaction. UNO is working from 1945 incessantly but piles of problems of international urgency are increasing more and more day by day. Also long awaited problems sobbing to be resolved appear left a side in the dust- bin with no future-solution. At this rocky juncture all human beings in the name of humanity are requested to consider it without any prejudice if it may be worth-considering in their estimation.
Syed Sarwar Husain Rizvi is a Professor of Law at Lucknow University, India