NEW YORK, Jun 13 (IPS) – The writer, a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.I am at a loss for words to express my horror as I watched the first segment of the public hearing of the Congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. As long as the Republican Party denies what happened that infamous day and Trump remains free, this country faces unprecedented peril.
Righting the Wrong
The Congressional committee investigating the January 6 insurrection began the first of its public hearings last week. Each of these is of the highest importance to the country, even if many Americans are unlikely to be swayed by them.
Last Thursday’s hearing revealed never-before-seen footage of the violence that erupted in the nation’s capital, and testimony from officials and advisors close to Trump (including Attorney General Barr and Ivanka Trump) made it clear that they did not believe Trump’s fabrication of a stolen election and told him so.
These hearings are crucial to our Republic, to maintaining the integrity of our democratic norms and institutions, and to preventing not simply another violent mob outbreak, but another attack on our democracy orchestrated, as this was, by the highest office in the land.
Indeed, what happened on January 6, 2021, was unprecedented in our history. It was the culmination of a concerted months-long effort by the President of the United States to halt the transfer of power and stage a coup that would have meant the end of this country as we know it, had he been successful.
The rule of law hung in the balance that day. Trump knowingly lied and continues to lie about the results of the 2020 election, and he summoned a mob to the capital promising that January 6 would be “Wild” – a last ditch effort to prevent the certification of Biden’s election victory.
Every president in our nation’s history has honored the constitutional duty to relinquish power and allow the peaceful transfer of executive authority – every president that is, until Donald Trump.
This is what many Americans still fail to grasp or acknowledge: Trump struck at the very heart of our democracy, he broke a solemn oath and in doing so he has made it easier for this to happen again.
If presidents are unwilling to honor the results of free and fair elections, then the future of this Republic in the gravest of danger. As it is, Trump has forever stained the office of the president: in breaking his oath to the constitution he has irrevocably broken the sacred trust between the American people and their chief executive.
Nothing will ever change the fact that a sitting president attempted an illegal, unconstitutional, and profoundly immoral coup to remain in power; that is a cause not only for the gravest concern but for the deepest sadness.
These hearings then are among the most important ever conducted in the 246 years since this nation was born, for they bear on nothing less than the very survival of this country as a constitutional democracy.
The existential danger that burst into deadly mob violence on January 6 has not been laid to rest, it is ongoing. It is still poisoning our country and casting a shadow over the next presidential election.
Trump continues to lie to the public; Republican lawmakers continue to parrot those lies and downplay what happened on January 6 or excuse and even justify it as “legitimate political discourse.”
If a mob attack on the Capitol is “legitimate political discourse” then our fate is already sealed – it is, then only a matter of time until the next violent insurrection; and the next one may well make January 6 look like a mere rehearsal.
If Trump had his way, then Vice-President Pence would have also broken his oath to the constitution and derailed the certification of electoral votes. Our continued existence as a Republic might very well have hung on Pence’s actions that day.
The mob’s response was to call for Pence to be hanged, and a noose and scaffold was erected apparently for that very purpose. What was Trump’s reaction when he was told that the mob was calling for Pence’s summary execution? His words were: “Maybe our supporters have the right idea.” Mike Pence “deserves” it.
Trump did not want the attack to stop, responded angrily to advisors that begged him to call off the mob, and supported their aim to see Mike Pence, one of his most loyal followers, hanged. The country as a whole must reckon with and acknowledge what a sitting president perpetrated and the existential harm he brought on this country with his reckless, abhorrent, and illegal actions.
To be sure, Trump was personally and directly responsible for the worst attack on the Capitol since 1814, and as long as he is at the helm of the Republican Party, he remains a very serious threat to the United States.
The Republican Party has been irredeemably hijacked by Trump’s autocratic ambitions. In following him they are bringing this country ever closer to another existential precipice. Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming – effectively excommunicated from the Republican Party simply for performing her sworn duty as a member of Congress – said what every Republican lawmaker “defending the indefensible” must hear and take to heart:
“There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”
Indeed, if these hearings assure us of anything it is that history will not be able to forget or deny the peril in which the nation was placed by a violent mob deployed by the President of the United States to overturn the result of a legitimate elections.
It is now clear, even before we hear more testimony, that Trump and his co-conspirators engineered a coup to prevent the peaceful transfer of power even though he handedly lost the election.
Trump knowingly violated the constitution that he swore to uphold and protect. Thus, there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that he has committed treason against the United States, for which he must be charged and face his day in court.
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jun 10 (IPS) – I’ve just finished going through the more than 60 presidential statements, documents and communiques about the war in Ukraine that the White House has released and posted on its website since Joe Biden’s State of the Union address in early March.
They all share with that speech one stunning characteristic — the complete absence of any mention of nuclear weapons or nuclear war dangers. Yet we’re now living in a time when those dangers are the worst they’ve been since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.
You might think that the risks of global nuclear annihilation would merit at least a few of the more than 25,000 words officially released on Biden’s behalf during the 100 days since his dramatic speech to a joint session of Congress.
But an evasive pattern began from the outset. While devoting much of that speech to the Ukraine conflict, Biden said nothing at all about the heightened risks that it might trigger the use of nuclear weapons.
A leader interested in informing the American people rather than infantilizing them would have something to say about the need to prevent nuclear war at a time of escalating tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.
A CBS News poll this spring found that the war in Ukraine had caused 70 percent of adults in the U.S. to be worried that it could lead to nuclear warfare.
But rather than publicly address such fears, Biden has dodged the public — unwilling to combine his justifiable denunciations of Russia’s horrific war on Ukraine with even the slightest cautionary mention about the upward spike in nuclear-war risks.
Biden has used silence to gaslight the body politic with major help from mass media and top Democrats. While occasional mainstream news pieces have noted the increase in nuclear-war worries and dangers, Biden has not been called to account for refusing to address them.
As for Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill, party loyalties have taken precedence over ethical responsibilities. What’s overdue is a willingness to insist that Biden forthrightly speak about a subject that involves the entire future of humanity.
Giving the president and congressional leaders the benefit of doubts has been a chronic and tragic problem throughout the nuclear age. Even some organizations that should know better have often succumbed to the temptation to serve as enablers.
In her roles as House minority leader and speaker, Nancy Pelosi has championed one bloated Pentagon budget increase after another, including huge outlays for new nuclear weapons systems.
Yet she continues to enjoy warm and sometimes even fawning treatment from well-heeled groups with arms-control and disarmament orientations.
And so it was, days ago, when the Ploughshares Fund sent supporters a promotional email about its annual “Chain Reaction” event — trumpeting that “Speaker Pelosi will join our illustrious list of previously announced speakers to explore current opportunities to build a movement to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all.”
The claim that Pelosi would be an apt person to guide listeners on how to “build a movement” with such goals was nothing short of absurd. For good measure, the announcement made the same claim for another speaker, Fiona Hill, a hawkish former senior director for Europe and Russia at the National Security Council.
Bizarre as it is, the notion that Pelosi and Hill are fit to explain how to “build a movement to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons” is in sync with a submissive assumption — that there’s no need to challenge Biden’s refusal to address nuclear-war dangers.
The president has a responsibility to engage with journalists and the public about nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to human survival on this planet. Urgently, Biden should be pushed toward genuine diplomacy including arms-control negotiations with Russia. Members of Congress, organizations and constituents should be demanding that he acknowledge the growing dangers of nuclear war and specify what he intends to do to diminish instead of fuel those dangers.
Such demands can gain momentum and have political impact as a result of grassroots activism rather than beneficent elitism. That’s why this Sunday, nearly 100 organizations are co-sponsoring a “Defuse Nuclear War” live stream — marking the 40th anniversary of the day when 1 million people gathered in New York’s Central Park, on June 12, 1982, to call for an end to the nuclear arms race.
That massive protest was in the spirit of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964: “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction.”
In 2022, the real possibility of such a hell for the entire world has become unmentionable for the president and his enablers. But refusing to talk about the dangers of thermonuclear destruction makes it more likely.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published this year in a new edition as a free e-book. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is also the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
NEW YORK, Jun 06 (IPS) – Any fair analysis of the United Nations strongly suggests that the UN of today is not the same UN that was established in 1945. The United Nations Security Council in particular, which was intended to maintain international peace and security, has sadly outlived its usefulness in its current makeup.
It has, for all intents and purposes, been paralyzed due to its own structural fault line that provides the five permanent member states—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—veto power. Whereas political consideration and self-interest understandably influenced their respective decisions, their veto power has often been used to meet one state or another’s narrow political interest regardless of its impact on international peace and security.
The composition of the UN
When the UN was established, 51 countries were member states of the General Assembly (GA). Presently, there are 193 member states, along with two Permanent Observer states (the Holy See and Palestine).
The GA can pass resolutions by a simple majority that expresses only a general consensus but without any enforcement powers. The problem here is that although the number of states in the GA has quadrupled and represents the entire international community, the Security Council’s size and permanent makeup has not changed, granting decision-making powers over binding resolutions to an increasing disproportionately small number of nations.
The United Nations Security Council
The UNSC (the Council) is composed of 5 permanent states: The United States, Russia (the successor nation of founding member USSR), China, the United Kingdom, and France.
These countries were accorded veto power because of their status as both great powers and the victors in World War II. They continue to exercise that power even though they do not represent the changing global demographic composition or realities of current geopolitical power.
Moreover, whereas the Council was bestowed with the powers to maintain peace and international security with enforceable mechanisms, it has generally failed to reach consensus on enforcing its own resolutions.
Thus, many countries who committed even egregious violations of the UN Charter have not generally been punished, which in many ways signaled that any country can violate the Charter and do so with impunity.
The creation of UN agencies
Although the UN has lagged greatly in its intended purpose to maintain international peace and security, it has over the years established many agencies that provide significant humanitarian assistance in many fields.
Among the most important agencies are the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Food Program, International Monetary Fund, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization, High Commissioner for Refugees, and UN Women. In this respect, the UN has become a massive relief organization.
UN Peacekeeping Forces
Another important branch of the UN is its peacekeeping forces. In many cases the peacekeepers rendered important services to keep the peace in different areas of conflict and in different times; currently, peacekeeping missions are ongoing in the Golan, Cyprus, Kosovo, Lebanon, Mali, Central African Republic, Western Sahara, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, and India and Pakistan, to maintain ceasefires, prevent outbreaks of violence in contentious areas, promote human rights, support humanitarian services, and support stabilization efforts as each individual mission requires.
On the whole, however, UN peacekeeping forces have become basically an afterthought to the global community as an increasing number of states no longer view UN forces as effective in their missions, and as the UN fails to hold accountable peacekeepers who commit human rights abuses, particularly sexual abuse and exploitation.
Nevertheless, as the World Bank notes, “every study that looked at diverse types of peacekeeping missions found that the UN was more effective in preventing and reducing violence than non-UN missions, and that stronger mandates and larger missions increased the likelihood of any mission’s success.”
In recent years, however, there has been a decrease in funding for UN peacekeeping forces, particularly due to the Trump administration’s withholding of full funding, which may eventually lead to dispatching of fewer and fewer peacekeepers, especially if more countries refuse to provide their share of funds.
Reforming the Security Council
Regardless of the importance of the humanitarian agencies, given the increasing violent conflicts around the world, the importance of the Security Council’s task to maintain international peace and security must become again central to the functioning of the UN.
Due to the present makeup of the Council, however, it cannot operate in that capacity unless significant reforms are undertaken. As a case in point, one must only look at the behavior of Russia at the onset of its invasion of Ukraine, where Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia denied in the midst of the invasion that it was not a war but only a “special military operation.”
He also vetoed numerous resolutions condemning Russia’s actions, a move that Norwegian Ambassador Mona Juul criticized, stating “A veto cast by the aggressor undermines the purpose of the council. It’s a violation of the very foundation of the U.N. Charter.”
It will be presumptuous on my part to provide the kind of reforms necessary to make the council relevant to international peace and security. Many have tried before me and sadly to no avail. One thing though is clear.
For the Security Council to meet its obligation and responsibility and be effective in maintaining peace and security, it must first and foremost represent the demographic makeup of the international community.
In addition, given the fact that the current countries on the Security Council will not relinquish their veto power voluntarily or by any provision in the UN Charter, the following partial reforms stand at least a small chance of being adopted. To that end, the following should be considered:
The Security Council should expand from 15 to 21 member states.
Nine states or regional unions will be granted permanent membership with veto power: the EU, the US, Russia, China, India, Indonesia to represent Asian countries, Brazil to represent the Latin American countries, the Arab League, and the African Union. Naturally the UK could present a major obstacle in this format, as it is no longer a member of the EU and would thus lose representation on the Council.
Twelve other countries in the Security Council would rotate every two years based on the current format.
A resolution can only be vetoed if two countries exercise their veto power.
The Security Council will establish an enforcement mechanism to ensure that its resolutions are carried out.
The Security Council will be empowered to resolve current violent conflicts and mediate other conflicts before they become violent.
The General Assembly will have the power to override any veto by a two-thirds majority.
The current global population is approximately 7.9 billion, and the total population of the above states or unions is 5.8 billion. As such, the Security Council would represent 73 percent of the global population, instead of the current Council makeup which only represents a paltry 25 percent, lower even than the 35 percent of the global population that the permanent UNSC members represented at its creation.
As I indicated above, this may well be a farfetched idea, but then again, we must begin to think seriously about reforming the Security Council if we want the UN to perform the way it was intended to.
Indeed, violent conflicts are on the rise, countries are infringing on the sovereignty of other weaker countries, and still many old conflicts remained unsolved. Together we are witnessing a far greater global volatility.
To stem these tides, we need a renewed effort to reform the UN Security Council and give it the power to resolve conflict peacefully.
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 06 (IPS) – The United Nations, which has failed to help resolve some of the world’s ongoing and longstanding civil wars and military conflicts—including Palestine, Afghanistan, Yemen, Western Sahara, Myanmar, Syria, and most recently, Ukraine—was rightfully challenged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his riveting address to the Security Council last April.
“Where is the peace that the United Nations was created to guarantee? And “where is the security that the Security Council was supposed to guarantee?” he asked, via tele-conferencing.
The UN has also remained helpless—with a divided Security Council in virtual paralysis — in another long-running political issue: the nuclear threat from North Korea, where a Security Council resolution for additional sanctions against DPRK was vetoed last month by Russia and China (even though it garnered 13 out of 15 votes).
The UN’s declining role in geo-politics, however, has been compensated for by its increasingly significant performance as a massive humanitarian relief organization.
These efforts are led by multiple UN agencies such as the World Food Program, the World Health Organization (WHO), the UN children’s fund UNICEF, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) , the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), among others.
These agencies, which have saved millions of lives, continue to provide food, medical care and shelter, to those trapped in war-ravaged countries, mostly in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, while following closely in the footsteps of international relief organizations, including Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, international Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), CARE International, Action Against Hunger, World Vision and Relief Without Borders, among others.
The UN’s increasing role in humanitarian relief work could perhaps earn the world body a new designation: United Nations Without Borders.
Besides humanitarian assistance, the UN also oversees nearly 90,000 peacekeepers in more than 12 UN peacekeeping operations and several observer missions, mostly in post-conflict situations., “helping countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.”
In an interview with US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield last month, Anne McElvoy of “The Economist Asks” Podcast said “the UN is becoming a giant humanitarian relief organization, …and it’s sort of really retreating from big-time geopolitics simply because this formula of the UN, the format of it and the way its checks and balances work, aren’t sharp or effective enough in the world as it is. Your thoughts?”.
Justifying the existence of the UN as a political body, Thomas-Greenfield said: “The UN is what we have, and we’re all members and we have to work every single day to ensure that this organization functions and that it provides the platform for ending conflict. It is the one place where we can all sit at the table together”.
She also said: “The UN is the one place where we can have discussions on peace and security. And it is the responsibility of the UN to work to prevent the scourge of war. That’s what it was created for. And so, we have not given up on the organization. We’ve not given up on the goals of the organization.”
Last month, the Executive Director of WFP David Beasley said the World Food Programme has fed about 130 million people, mostly in conflict zones, last year. This year, that number is expected to rise to be about 150 million.
At the daily news briefings, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric provides a list of the humanitarian relief provided by UN agencies worldwide, particularly in conflict zones.
As of May 26, Dujarric said the UN and more than 260 of its humanitarian partners in Ukraine have reached 7.6 million people with assistance. Cash support also continues to increase with an additional 1.1 million people reached in May.
From March to May, a total of 1.5 million people have received cash assistance and health care support while around 352,000 people have been provided with clean water and hygiene products.
“We have also reached nearly 430,000 people with protection services, psychosocial support and critical legal services, including support to internally displaced persons,” he added.
In the Horn of Africa, the UN and its partners have provided about 4.9 million people with food while more than two million livestock have been treated or vaccinated, and over 3.3 million people have received water assistance.
In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN and its NGO partners, have started distributing aid to thousands of people in Nyiragongo territory, including food to some 35,000 people, water, and medicine to at least 10,000 people.
Since January last year, the UN has also reached out to about 1.1 million drought-impacted people in the Grand Sud, Madagascar, with critical assistance, which has played a vital role in averting the risk of famine.
This has been possible due to the generosity of donors, who contributed $196 million out of the $231 million required for the Grand Sud drought response, between January of last year and May of this year.
In an op-ed piece for IPS, Dr Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), said although the UN has lagged greatly in its intended purpose to maintain international peace and security, it has over the years established many agencies that provide significant humanitarian assistance in many fields.
Among the most important agencies are the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, World Food Program, International Monetary Fund, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Health Organization, High Commissioner for Refugees, and UN Women, he wrote.
“In this respect, the UN has become a massive relief organization,” he declared.
Kul Gautam, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General and ex-Deputy Executive Director at UNICEF, told IPS the UN system has not been as effective as its founders had hoped in preventing wars and maintaining peace and security.
It has also been less effective than what many developing countries had hoped for in helping them tackle the challenges of economic development and social progress.
Its saving grace has, therefore, been largely in the area of humanitarian relief and rehabilitation – an area which is now heavily populated by UN agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and faith-based charities.
“This is not to underestimate the value of the UN’s humanitarian response, as the world today confronts historically unprecedented numbers of refugees, displaced persons, victims of natural and man-made disasters and new forms of violence against women, children and other vulnerable groups”.
But as modern wars, violent conflicts, pandemics and increasingly perilous environmental crises can no longer be contained within national boundaries, but require concerted multilateral action, the need for a stronger and more effective UN is more urgent today than ever before, said Gautam, author of “My Journey from the Hills of Nepal to the Halls of the United Nations”. www.kulgautam.org.
Andreas Bummel, Executive Director, Democracy Without Borders, told IPS the UN’s humanitarian activities are essential. This is where the UN has the most immediate impact.
In the field of peace and security it should not be forgotten that the UN was created as a tool of its member states, he pointed out.
“State sovereignty is the UN’s most glorified principle. The UN has no independent authority and no means of enforcement. Even if it had, it is difficult to imagine how it could interfere in a conflict that involves one of the big powers”.
The UN was not intended to wage war against any of them, he argued, “That’s why the veto right was created. The veto is being misused though for political purposes. This is not in line with the purpose of the UN and the spirit of its Charter,” he declared.
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Jun 01 (IPS) – New outcries for gun control have followed the horrible tragedies of mass shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo. “Evil came to that elementary school classroom in Texas, to that grocery store in New York, to far too many places where innocents have died,” President Biden declared over the weekend during a university commencement address.
The concept of curtailing the U.S. military’s arsenal is such a nonstarter that it doesn’t even get mentioned. Yet the annual number of deadly shootings in the United States — 19,384 at last count — is comparable to the average yearly number of documented civilian deaths directly caused by the Pentagon’s warfare in the last two decades. And such figures on war deaths are underestimates.
From high-tech rifles and automatic weapons to drones, long-range missiles and gravity bombs, the U.S. military’s weaponry has inflicted carnage in numerous countries. How many people have been directly killed by the “War on Terror” violence?
An average of 45,000 human beings each year — more than two-fifths of them innocent civilians — since the terror war began, as documented by the Costs of War project at Brown University.
The mindset of U.S. mass media and mainstream politics is so militarized that such realities are routinely not accorded a second thought, or even any thought. Meanwhile, the Pentagon budget keeps ballooning year after year, with President Biden now proposing $813 billion for fiscal year 2023.
Liberals and others frequently denounce how gun manufacturers are making a killing from sales of handguns and semiautomatic rifles in the United States, while weapons sales to the Pentagon continue to spike upward for corporate war mega-profiteers.
As William Hartung showed in his Profits of War report last fall, “Pentagon spending has totaled over $14 trillion since the start of the war in Afghanistan, with one-third to one-half of the total going to military contractors.
A large portion of these contracts — one-quarter to one-third of all Pentagon contracts in recent years — have gone to just five major corporations: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.”
What’s more, the United States is the world’s leading arms exporter, accounting for 35 percent of total weapons sales — more than Russia and China combined. The U.S. arms exports have huge consequences.
Pointing out that the Saudi-led war and blockade on Yemen “has helped cause the deaths of nearly half a million people,” a letter to Congress from 60 organizations in late April said that “the United States must cease supplying weapons, spare parts, maintenance services, and logistical support to Saudi Arabia.”
How is it that countless anguished commentators and concerned individuals across the USA can express justified fury at gun marketers and gun-related murders when a mass shooting occurs inside U.S. borders, while remaining silent about the need for meaningful gun control at the Pentagon?
The civilians who have died — and are continuing to die — from use of U.S. military weapons don’t appear on American TV screens. Many lose their lives due to military operations that are unreported by U.S. news media, either because mainline journalists don’t bother to cover the story or because those operations are kept secret by the U.S. government. As a practical matter, the actual system treats certain war victims as “unworthy” of notice.
Whatever the causal mix might be — in whatever proportions of conscious or unconscious nationalism, jingoism, chauvinism, racism and flat-out eagerness to believe whatever comforting fairy tale is repeatedly told by media and government officials — the resulting concoction is a dire refusal to acknowledge key realities of U.S. society and foreign policy.
Yes, gun control is a great idea. For the small guns. And the big ones.
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of a dozen books including Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America’s Warfare State, published this year in a new edition as a free e-book. His other books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.
ATHENS, Greece, May 25 (IPS) – Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has sparked a new introspection in the West. A number of commentators, most of them writing from the US and the UK, have come up with their latest scapegoat: Germany’s to blame, they say, with its decades-long policy of appeasing Russia. Really?
People love to dislike Germany. Often for good reasons. Successive Merkel administrations were hard-hearted in their management of the eurozone crisis, imposing crippling austerity on the South. They prioritised Germany’s narrow economic interests when dealing with illiberal regimes, including an aggressive Turkey.
Germany pursued a similar policy with Russia, too, weaving a tight web of economic relations. Since the turning point of 24 February, it is clear that this policy has outlived its usefulness. But the vitriol hurled at Germany has been excessive in the extreme: ‘Putin’s useful idiots’ was the verdict of a recent Politico Europe article on Germany’s leaders. The German president was prevented from visiting Kyiv after being declared persona non grata. It’s all getting rather out of hand.
Understanding the German perspective
Extreme criticism of this sort is not only about Germany and how to deal with brutal leaders like Putin. It is also about Europe’s role in the international system. And it has gone too far, for at least four reasons:
First, history.
Having acknowledged the crimes of Nazism, Germany was re-established on new foundations after 1945. No other country has made historical guilt such an integral part of its national self-consciousness.
George PagoulatosThis led to the drawing up of a pacifist constitution, the consignment of German nationalism to the fringes, and seven-plus decades of commitment to European integration. When the Germans justify Nord Stream by citing the destruction wrought by Hitler’s Germany on Russia, or when they say they don’t want German tanks rolling into Ukraine killing Russian soldiers, there is deep historical content in it.
One could dismiss it as a thing of the past, but vacuous it isn’t, nor is it just pretext.
Second, Ostpolitik.
The Social Democrats in Germany today inherited Willy Brandt’s post-1960s doctrine of cooperation, dialogue and detente with the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc. This policy, which has been adhered to by every administration since, contributed to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and to the peaceful reunification of the two Germanies.
As a member of NATO, Germany did not cease to play an active role in the containment of the Soviet bloc. But it complemented this role with a farsighted policy of opening up to the Soviet Union. A wise policy which was vindicated.
Third, Realpolitik.
There is no doubt that its nexus of commercial transactions with Putin’s Russia has been commercially beneficial for Germany. Should anyone be surprised if a state chooses to act according to its economic interests? And indeed, the mercantilism of an export-led German economy that grows on the back of foreign trade often leads German foreign policy to forge relations with authoritarian regimes.
Nord Stream 2 did leave Germany fully dependent on Russian gas. However, the Scholz administration shut the pipeline down immediately after the invasion of Ukraine and moved forward to support all the heavy sanctions imposed, accepting the resulting economic damage.
But the key point here is this: If Europe’s main weapon for responding to Putin’s aggression is economic sanctions, it is precisely the density of the commercial relations with Russia that makes sanctions an effective lever capable of delivering real pressure.
Without these transactions, Putin would have nothing to lose – sanctions would be utterly meaningless! Economic interdependence gives Europe the power to exercise a deterrent by escalating sanctions. Even if it stands to bear a good part of the cost of them itself.
Building bridges not walls
There is nothing black and white about dealing in the long term with a militaristic authoritarian rival, one that holds nuclear weapons. It requires an ever-evolving mix of incentives and sanctions to encourage positive behaviour, discourage negative actions, and respond directly to aggression; a toolkit containing both engagement and containment to be applied in alternating doses.
The German logic of dealing with Russia is helping to maintain a balanced European foreign policy mix, which would otherwise be heavily skewed toward atavistic Cold War hawkishness.
Fourth, Europe.
Peace in post-war Europe owes much to the pragmatic restraint of its leaderships, the taming of nationalisms, the forging of mutually beneficial cooperation. The EU owes its historical success to building bridges, not walls. Of course, when things change, Europe (and Germany) change their mind, to paraphrase Keynes.
The EU cannot and must not abandon its doctrine of soft power; rather, it must complement it with hard power and defensive deterrence. But holding the European leaders who sought to engage Russia as a partner responsible for Putin’s war is worse than revisionism. It is a plain distortion of logic.
This article was originally published on ekathimerini-com
George Pagoulatos is a professor at the Athens University of Economics and Business, visiting professor at the College of Europe, and director general of the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)
NEW YORK, May 10 (IPS) – “Whatever the circle of hell in which we live,
I think we are free to break out of it.”
– Jean-Paul Sartre, Preface to the Deutsche Gramaphon recording of No Exit
Mr. Vladimir Putin’s illegal War of Aggression in Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022, brought into stark relief the fractured state of Global Peace and Security. Militarized conflicts, civilian deaths and forced migration in the tens of millions have been ongoing for decades, with little or no relief to the beleaguered victims.
The war in Ukraine appears to have displaced other ongoing major wars in Yemen, Ethiopia, and Myanmar in the global public imagination thanks to the 24/7 news cycle. The primary mandate of the United Nations is to ensure the maintenance of Global Peace and Security, sadly we seem to have neither, apart from a lot of talk by eminent personages with little or no action to redress the dystopian realities and carnage on the ground.
The Latin motto res, non verba comes to mind – meaning “deeds, and not words” – as quite an appropriate model for the United Nations to adopt rather than sticking to ‘business as usual’ – which is quite lame and pathetic to say the least in these trying times.
Secretary-General António Guterres must not leave diplomacy, mediation, and negotiation to half-baked UN diplomats out in the field and even within his own Executive Office – UN-EOSG.
In the context of current world affairs and international relations, it is imperative that the Secretary-General plays a more pivotal and far-greater active role to uphold the primary mandate of the United Nations and ensure the maintenance of Global Peace and Security.
The time for protecting the image and status of the UN Secretary-General is over, as well as being held hostage by the P-5 Permanent Member States of the UN Security Council who have run roughshod over all current and previous UN Secretaries-General.
Rather than being risk averse, Secretary-General Guterres must play a much more active and visible role on the global stage and behind-the-scenes – traveling incessantly to war-torn UN member states to meet the protagonists regularly and personally mediating, using his high office and moral standing to good effect – to boost UN mediation efforts.
Reminiscent of the active and energetic interventions of one of his predecessors, the late Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold, who sadly paid the ultimate price along with 15 other UN advisors, bodyguards, and aircrew when their plane was shot down on September 18, 1961, in Northern Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe.
In today’s geopolitical environment, Secretary-General Guterres cannot be seen as one of the last of a long line of diplomats and politicians to visit a war-torn region, as was the case of his recent visit in late April 2022 to Moscow and Kyiv – to put it bluntly this is bad optics.
Secretary-General Guterres must use his Executive Office to better effect and the global public needs to be aware and supportive. Given the very high stakes involved he must be much more proactive regarding Ukraine, and all ongoing wars and armed conflicts in evenhanded fashion – without fear nor favor.
On the plus side Secretary-General Guterres did call the war in Ukraine “evil and unacceptable” and called for justice. However, Guterres’ call fell on deaf ears in Moscow, demonstrated by the fact that Russia launched five missiles striking central Kyiv less than one hour after he held a news conference with Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelenskyy.
So, what is to be done when a P-5 Permanent Member State of the UN Security Council goes “rogue” – i.e., beyond the bounds of civilized, rules-based behavior of a nation-state in the 21st Century adhering to tenets of Global Peace and Security enshrined in the UN Charter, the Laws of War, the Geneva Conventions, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – as in the case of Mr. Putin and his government?
Notwithstanding the fact that Secretary-General Guterres is a former Prime Minister of Portugal, he must demonstrate his independence from the Western powers, and immediately follow-up on his Moscow and Kyiv visit by visiting Beijing to enlist President Xi Jingping’s not-so-inconsequential support to put pressure on Moscow to end the aggression in Ukraine and call off the dogs of war.
And while he is negotiating in Beijing, he must also secure the support of China to pressure the Tatmadaw Kyi military junta to standdown and restore democracy without delay in Myanmar to provide relief to its beleaguered peoples. Non-confrontational diplomacy is the key to success in Beijing something that Secretary-General Guterres is adept at doing, which he should use to good effect considering that the Chinese are not belligerents.
Beijing is more inclined towards global trade and commerce and promoting their ambitious “Belt and Road Initiative” global megaproject, which is undoubtedly being hampered by war in Ukraine.
After two bloody world wars where tens of millions of human beings died, nobody wants another largescale inter-European war, which has potential ramifications for militaries and civilians well beyond Europe.
In fact, Mr. Putin’s War of Aggression in Ukraine is already deepening world hunger given that global wheat production, storage and supply is severely hampered by fighting. The power of the United Nations is a reflected power – i.e., that of its leading member states adhering to a rules-based system of global governance – and that power is what all UN Secretaries-General must harness for the greater good through the arts of diplomacy, mediation, and negotiation to maintain Global Peace and Security.
Secretary-General Guterres is urgently called upon to demonstrate his leadership and political acumen in these dystopian and troubled times, using his moral courage as a beacon to rally global publics to support the mandate and mission of the United Nations. The UN Secretary-General cannot and must not be relegated to the role of bystander while belligerents run amok, he/she must lead, irrespective of the personal cost, without fear nor favor.
As for Secretary-General Guterres a devout Catholic (close to His Holiness Pope Francis an outspoken critic of war), he cannot accomplish this mammoth task alone – to enhance his moral authority he needs to harness the power and voice of civil society together with that of the world’s multiple religions – all working together at manifold levels to maintain Global Peace and Security.
Dr Purnaka L. de Silva is Professor UN Studies (M.A. Program) at the School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University, and Director, Institute of Strategic Studies and Democracy (ISSD) Malta. In March 2022 he received Seton Hall University’s College Adjunct Faculty Teacher of the Year Award, and in December 2021 was nominated Diplomacy Professor of the Year by the School of Diplomacy and International Relations.
NEW YORK, May 09 (IPS) – Dr. Alon Ben-Meir, a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU), taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.A revised Iran nuclear deal based on the 2015 JCPOA could provide the basis for a new Biden administration strategy that would limit Iran’s nuclear program to peaceful purposes and ensure that Tehran’s public pronouncement that it is not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons becomes a de facto reality.
Righting the Wrong
Regardless of how flawed the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; aka Iran nuclear deal) may be, it was by far better than having no deal. Trump’s withdrawal from the deal was most unfortunate as it did nothing but bring Iran ever closer to the nuclear threshold. Despite its public pronouncements to the contrary,
Tehran remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons at some point in the near future; however, it can change its position once it returns to the original deal and together with the US builds upon it. Nonetheless, to change the dynamic of the conflict and determine what it might take to modify Iran’s position, we need to better understand what is behind its nuclear ambitions.
Thus, it is important to first examine the clergy’s mindset and their motivation to acquire nuclear weapons in spite of Western powers’ objections and irrespective of the weighty, if not crippling sanctions that have been imposed on the country over the years.
With a long and proud history, vast natural and human resources (with a population of more than 90 million), rich culture, and geostrategic location, Iran feels that it is entitled to become the region’s hegemon where it can exert considerable influence.
Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has felt threatened and isolated, living in fear of a US-orchestrated regime change. As such, Iran commits nearly $25 billion of its annual budget to the military (an increase of 11 percent from 2020, making it the 14th largest military spender in the world) and over the years it has built a powerful conventional armed forces led by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
Given however the limitations of Iran’s conventional military power projection, the next phase of its national defense doctrine was the development of a nuclear weapons program designed to achieve three main objectives.
Why Iran seeks nuclear weapons
First, Iran’s determination to realize its ambition of regional hegemony would be substantially augmented by the possession of nuclear weapons. Iran has no intention of threatening or using such weapons against any of its adversaries—especially Israel, which is in possession of second-strike nuclear capability that could wipe out half the country—but the mere fact of being a nuclear power will give it the prestige and regional sway that it desires.
Second, by acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran wants to establish the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) and thus deter any nuclear power, such as the US or Israel, from attacking it, knowing full well that no country with nuclear weapons has been attacked since World War II.
India and Pakistan, who fought three conventional wars over Kashmir, have refrained from waging another war since they acquired nuclear weapons. The same can be said about North Korea, and if Ukraine kept its nuclear arsenals, Russia very likely would not have dared to invade it.
Third, as a predominantly Shiite state, Iran seeks to be on par with Sunni Pakistan and Jewish Israel, and cannot allow itself to be overshadowed by either. Moreover, Iran would feel confident that it can shield itself from regime change orchestrated by the US in particular.
Iran’s nuclear weapon strategy
Although Iran has time and again stated that it has no intention of acquiring nuclear weapons and may remain true to its public narrative, based on solid intelligence evidence, Iran is seeking to achieve nuclear latency and produce enough weapons-grade uranium to construct three to four nuclear weapons in short order.
However, it may well take Iran 18 months to two years to miniaturize a nuclear head to be fitted onto a ballistic missile.
Meanwhile, the clergy is prepared to sign off on a return to the original deal provided that their demands are met. This would include removing most if not all the sanctions to get the financial relief they desperately need, unfreezing tens of billions of dollars, and removing the IRGC’s militant arm, the Quds Force, from the US terrorist list, which Iran is insisting upon and should not be a deal breaker.
As things stand now, once Iran returns to the original deal, it will wait for the expiration of the sunset clauses in 2031 to resume its nuclear weapon program; the Iranians are known for their patience, and they feel that time and God are on their side.
For the Biden administration to address Iran’s concerns and dissuade it from taking the final leap to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons, it must develop a three-pronged strategy: a) change its public narrative and convey to the Iranian public that the US has no intention of undermining Iran’s sovereignty and national security; b) craft a renewed JCPOA, build on it, and help Iran to become a constructive member of the international community; and c) establish a regional security architecture that will include all the countries from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.
Changing the public narrative
How the Iranian government and people perceive the US’ intentions matters greatly in shaping their public opinion. Any bellicose statements and threats emanating from the US or Israel plays directly into the hand of the clergy, as they will use these adversarial pronouncements to show their public that the US is Iran’s foremost enemy.
In so doing they not only justify their enmity toward the US but also blame it for the economic hardship the public is experiencing. For the Biden administration to impact Iranian public opinion, it must refrain from using acrimonious rhetoric and make it clear by every possible means that the US holds no animosity toward Iran and is open to settle any and all disputes with the government peacefully and collaboratively.
It should be noted that even after 43 years of reign by the clergy, the majority of the Iranian population, especially the youth, remain Western-oriented and would like nothing more than to restore normal relations with the West, to where they can travel and study.
We should also remember that before the 1979 revolution, Iran was one of the closet allies of the US, and two or three generations has not changed the public’s Western-leaning cultural foundation. Similarly, seventy years of Soviet communist domination did not alter the eastern European countries’ political orientation, which sought to join the Western democracies immediately following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Needless to say, changing public narratives in and of itself will not be sufficient – it must be accompanied by action and sincere efforts to create a new environment not only to lend credibility to the new approach but in fact change the dynamic of the conflict.
Building on the renewed JCPOA
For that to happen, the Biden administration ought to make it clear to Iran that by returning to the original deal it can benefit greatly, not only from the initial phase of lifting the sanctions and unfreezing tens of billions of dollars but also by building on the new deal through:
1. Beginning a process of normalizing relations between Washington and Tehran by establishing initial diplomatic relations;
2. Renouncing publicly any effort to seek regime change, which is a prerequisite for any kind of Iranian cooperation;
3. Starting trade relations between the two countries and supporting Iran in joining the World Trade Organization;
4. Committing to not undertaking military or cyber-attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities as long as its nuclear program remains peaceful; and finally,
5. Creating a joint commission to address a host of conflicting issues to reduce tensions and build trust.
In return, Iran will be required first and foremost to end its nuclear weapons program and agree to unfettered and permanent monitoring of its nuclear facilities, stop threatening other countries, especially Israel, and cease its support of extremist and terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.
Certainly, given that Israel is consistently threatened by Iran, it should be allowed to give its input regarding these issues through the US, without blowing its national security concerns out of proportion. Since Iran denies being engaged in any nefarious activity, the negotiation about these sensitive issues, including its cruise and ballistic missiles program, ought to obviously take place behind the scenes.
There will be many who would argue that such an approach amounts to nothing more than a pipe dream. They maintain that the Iranian government is religiously fanatic, politically radical, militarily aggressive with grandiose strategic ambitions, illogical, and a major destabilizing force in the region.
Indeed, anyone who listens to the clergy’s denunciations and condemnations of the US and Israel would concur that the Iranian regime is perhaps irredeemable and that only regime change would alter its behavior. One cannot dismiss this argument out of hand as Iran’s conduct in the region and beyond speaks for itself.
That said, the people of Iran want to grow, flourish, and live in peace, and the ruling clergy knows that they cannot achieve this as long as they remain economically hamstrung by sanctions while continuing to treat the US as a mortal enemy. Culturally, the Iranians are known to be calculating and strategically savvy.
To be sure, notwithstanding the leadership’s adversarial public posture and utterances against the US, they certainly prefer normal relations with America than perpetual enmity.
This however, should not preclude the US from pursuing a new Middle Eastern strategy that would effectively compel Iran to choose between two options: either to become a constructive player in the region or a perpetual enemy who must always be constrained by any means necessary, including the use of force.
Establishing a regional security architecture
As the Biden administration embarks on the process of reconciliation with Iran, it should concurrently begin discussions with its Middle Eastern allies—the six Arab Gulf states, Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Egypt—to form a regional security alliance.
Such an alliance is more likely to be established at the present than at any other time in the past, especially because of the Abraham Accords, where Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in the Gulf, along with Sudan and Morocco, have normalized relations with Israel. The remaining Gulf states—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman—are already collaborating with Israel on many fronts, especially on security and intelligence-sharing.
The purpose of such an alliance would be to challenge Iran’s regional ambitions and pose a veiled threat to its national security, compelling Iran to choose between two options. Iran can either gradually moderate its position and become a constructive player in and outside the region, or stick to its ambition to become a nuclear power once the new deal runs its course.
If Iran chooses the latter, the Biden administration should then consider building the infrastructure that would provide a nuclear umbrella to all member states of the alliance, something that was floated by Hillary Clinton when she ran for president.
This strategy may seem far-fetched and undoable simply because of the huge differences in perception and the ultimate objectives of each side. But then we have to admit that since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the enmity and distrust between the US and Iran has only deepened.
Indeed, if there was an opportunity to build on the original deal and create more constructive relations between the US and Iran, it was blown away by Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. This has only further deepened Iran’s distrust of the US, which predates the 1979 revolution and is rooted in the US-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh government in 1953, despite the fact that they continued to maintain good relations from 1953 to 1979.
After 43 years of continuing hostility, it is time for a new approach. Iran is a large and powerful country and is not going anywhere. It occupies one of the most strategic locations in the world and thus it cannot be simply ignored, or written off as an irredeemable enemy that responds only to the threat or use of force.
A return to the original deal offers a perhaps rare opportunity to open a new chapter in the relations between the US and Iran and bring an end to a consuming conflict that will otherwise continue to dangerously destabilize the region.
The US can now change the dynamic of the conflict by offering Iran a promising prospect for economic prosperity and growth while enhancing its national security, or be subject to constant sabotage, crippling sanctions, and potential military attacks on its nuclear facilities, as President Biden and Israel vowed to never allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
The US can make this overture not only because it has nothing to lose, but also because it can demonstrate resolute leadership and be ready to change course by offering a solution from a position of strength, even if it stands only a small chance of success.
Since Iran consistently denies having any ambition to acquire nuclear weapons, this strategy will allow it to forsake its nuclear weapons program without losing face, while leveraging constructively its vast potential as a major regional power.
UNITED NATIONS, May 04 (IPS) – The Russian Federation, which invaded Ukraine last February killing scores of civilians and destroying entire cities, has been condemned, vilified and ostracized by the international community.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was emphatic last month when he remarked: “The use of force by one country against another is the repudiation of the principles that every country has committed to uphold. This applies to the present military offensive. It is wrong. It is against the Charter. It is unacceptable”.
And while the US and Western European nations have cut off all commercial and financial ties with Russia— treating Moscow as an international pariah– the UN Secretariat is continuing its multi-million-dollar contracts with a blacklisted Russia.
Metaphorically speaking, it triggers the question: does the UN’s right hand know what its left foot is up to?
The goods and services from Russia are primarily air transportation, mostly helicopters, including maintenance and servicing; information and communication technologies (ICT); and food catering, largely for the UN’s 12 peacekeeping missions.
Asked if the UN had received a letter from the Ukrainian Mission urging the Secretariat to end its procurements from Russia, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric told reporters last month: “We did receive, earlier in March, a petition by the Permanent Mission of Ukraine to us, to quote, “immediately suspend all non essential procurement cooperation of the UN with the Russian Federation.”
“We responded to the Permanent Mission of Ukraine a few days later that the procuring of goods and services and works by the UN Secretariat, is in accordance with the mandate given to us by the General Assembly and in with the Financial Regulations of the UN, which requires such procurement actions to be done on the basis of best value for money, fairness, integrity and transparency, and effective international competition.”
He also pointed out that “it’s no secret that a lot of our aviation procurement for peacekeeping and just logistics comes from the Russian Federation, with also quite a bit from Ukraine.”
“The rules are set by the General Assembly, and we follow those rules. So, our position is set by the rules… the financial rules that we have… that we follow… The rules say procurement actions are done on the basis of best value for money, fairness, integrity and transparency, and effective international competition”.
But the 193-member General Assembly, the UN’s highest policy-making body, is missing in action (MIA) — or perhaps planning to pass the buck to the UN’s Administrative and Budgetary Committee.
Asked for a response to comments from the UN Spokesperson‘s office, Christian Saunders, Assistant Secretary General for Supply Chain Management at the Department of Operational Support, told IPS: “The information provided during the briefing by the UN spokesperson remains valid.”
According to the latest available figures, the UN’s purchases from Russia amounted to about $115.6 million in 2021, with Moscow listed as the 5th largest supplier behind the US, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kenya and Switzerland.
The breakdown is as follows: US ($456.2 million), UAE ($329.3 million), Kenya ($192.4 million), Switzerland ($182.3 million) and Russia ($115.6 million).
The UN also has trade links with Russia’s largest helicopter operator, UTair – Helicopter Services, described as a leading provider of aviation services to companies in the fuel and energy industries, plus the United Nations.
Last year, the UN Procurement Division (UNPD) called for tenders for the following contracts in aviation procurement, where Russia has remained a front-runner.
One Medium Fixed Wing Turboprop Passenger Aircraft Support of UNISFA for a period of one year Plus two optional extension periods of one year each.
An Air Ambulance Aircraft Service with Guaranteed Availability based in Europe in support of UN Operations, for a period of three months, plus three optional extension periods of three months each.
A second Air Ambulance Aircraft Service with Guaranteed Availability based in Accra, Ghana in support of UN Operations, for a period of three months plus three optional extension periods of three months each.
Meanwhile, the approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations for the fiscal year 1 July 2021 – 30 June 2022 is a staggering $6.38 billion. (A/C.5/75/25)—and payments to Russian contractors will flow largely from this budget.
But one question cries out for an answer: how will the UN pay for these purchases and services when Russians have been barred from most of the international banking system?
Speaking of Russia’s isolation at the UN, US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told reporters May 3: “We have been successful in isolating Russia in the Security Council, and that’s a significant success. We have been successful in unifying the voices condemning Russia in the General Assembly, but it came about because there was so much support for it in the Security Council. And getting 141 votes to support that effort was a significant success for all of us””.
“And we have been successful in unifying the UN in suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council. Russia is isolated in the Security Council, and every time we have a discussion in the Security Council as it relates to Russia, they are on the defensive and we will continue to keep them on the defensive until they end their brutal attack on the Ukrainian people”.
Last week Russia was suspended from the UN World Tourism Organization (UNETO), shortly after Moscow announced it had decided to quit in anticipation of the suspension.
Ian Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association, told IPS it is difficult within the rule, but the UN can be notoriously slow in paying its bills which might be appropriate in this case.
“But they do need an official body to bar contracts for Russian companies to protect staff involved and to ward off breach of contract. It is hard to leave it to the courage, or caprice, of UN bureaucrats”.
The UN had no compunction in hiring a CIA founded company to run UN missions along the Iraq-Kuwait border despite Iraqi protests at the UN, said Williams, author of ‘Untold: The Real Story of the United Nations in Peace and War.’
Opinion by Paul Teng, Genevieve Donnellon-May (singapore)
Inter Press Service
SINGAPORE, May 02 (IPS) – Amidst a backdrop of rising food insecurity worldwide and a global food supply chain crisis, many countries are attempting to increase the level of food self-production. One improved input for farming which is receiving renewed attention is improved seed. The two most populous countries in the world, China and India, have recently made ground-breaking moves to improve their competitive position by developing new seeds which will improve their food production and increase resilience to climate change. So far, in 2022, new regulations on using biotechnology (genetic modification and gene editing) have been put in place by both countries to ultimately allow smallholder farmers to benefit from these new seeds.
Paul Teng
The COVID pandemic and, more recently, the Ukraine-Russia war have significantly disrupted food production and supply chains for food and farm inputs. Fears are growing about reduced crop planting by farmers in developing countries and reduced yields due to the lesser use of high-priced fertilizers. Apart from fertilizers, supply chain disruptions affect all inputs needed for farming, including seeds. The seed is the first link in the food chain.
The availability and access to seeds are essential to farmers, particularly in developing countries or areas affected by droughts and other disasters, giving rise to the concept of “seed security, which the UN FAO defines as the “ready access by rural households, particularly farmers and farming communities, to adequate quantities of quality seed and planting materials of crop varieties, adapted to their agro-ecological conditions and socioeconomic needs, at planting time, under normal and abnormal weather conditions.” In many developing countries, quality seed is commonly produced by companies operating under public scrutiny.
The importance of having reliable supplies of improved seeds for farmers has been particularly highlighted in the world’s most populous country, China, where seeds are high on the policy agenda.
In early April 2022, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for working toward food self-sufficiency and developing the country’s seed industry during a visit to a seed laboratory in Hainan Province, southern China. He noted that China’s food security could only be safeguarded when seed resources are firmly held in its own hands. President Xi’s comments come at a time when many countries aim to increase their self-production of food in anticipation of disruptions in supply chains such as those caused by the Ukraine-Russia crisis and the COVID pandemic.
Genevieve Donnellon-May
President Xi’s comments fit in the broader context of seed and food, issues that will only continue to grow in importance. They come at a time when there is rising food insecurity worldwide and a looming global food crisis brought on by the Ukraine-Russia War, a worsening geopolitical environment and growing vulnerability of the global food supply chains due to accelerated climate change impacts and Covid-19-related disruptions.
All the above background factors have led China and India to make important moves to tap a proven tool for developing new crop varieties, namely biotechnology.
In April 2022, China’s agriculture ministry announced plans for the first time after many years of deliberations to approve two new genetically modified corn varieties developed by the Syngenta Group. Earlier, In January 2022, China published new guidelines for the approval of gene-edited plants, paving the way for faster improvements to important food security crops. And this came amid a raft of measures to overhaul China’s seed industry, seen as a weak link in efforts to ensure it can feed the world’s biggest population. China’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Tang Renjian, had likened seeds to the “computer chips” of agriculture.
In an unrelated parallel development, India approved a key change in rules at the end of March 2022 to allow genome-edited plants or organisms without any “foreign” genes to be subjected to a different regulatory process than the one applied to genetically engineered products. As in China, this is anticipated to lead to faster development of new crop varieties that can meet the challenges of climate change and higher yields.
However, not all interested parties support the use of biotechnology to develop new seeds or patenting new crop varieties. Although the evidence is strong that multinational and domestic seed companies have played a major role in lifting crop production through their improved seeds, this has also led to concerns about the control that the private sector may have over this important input for food production. And related to this issue of control of seeds is the patenting of new seeds.
There has been a rise in ‘seed activism‘ and interest in seed sovereignty as part of the pushback against the modern agricultural system that is supported by patented seeds such as hybrids. This pushback has been helmed by groups which exploit the fear (often speculative) that by having control over seeds, a handful of multinational companies, rather than farmers or countries, have control over the global food supply. This omits the reality that farmers have the right to choose whatever seeds to plant and even keep their own seeds if desired. These groups have also failed to recognize that investments to innovate and produce new seeds would not have been possible without adequate protection of seeds as intellectual property. Countries like China and India realise the importance of promoting innovations in the seed industry.
China, in particular, has announced that it aims to revitalize the seed sector, encourage germplasm collection, and strengthen intellectual property protection in the sector. In China, views on the importance of seeds in food security are reflected in various domestic policies such as in 2022’s “No 1 Central Policy Document”, the country’s agricultural blueprint. A top policy priority is the development of the seed industry in China.
The issues of seed sovereignty based on farmer-saved seed, when balanced against the track record of improved seeds from companies which give high yields, are complex. But in the final analysis, farmers will choose the seeds that give them the most assured yields under risky conditions, even if they have to pay for such seeds. This has been the case with almost all the developed and developing countries with food surpluses for export, such as the U.S.A., Canada, Brazil and Argentina. And consumers, as well as food importers are those who benefit by there being more food at affordable prices.
The first “Green Revolution” in Asia which took off in the 1970s was based on improved seeds of wheat and rice, bred using technologies which were novel at that time. However, towards the latter part of the last millennium, the need for more novel technologies to improve crops became obvious as yield gains were stagnating in many crops. The challenges facing all smallholder farmers arising from changes in climate, pests and natural resource depletion are becoming more intense and frequent. And unless new seeds are developed and made available to farmers in shorter timeframes, it is the consuming public that will suffer the consequences of reduced, unreliable food supply and higher prices.
The conundrum is how to balance local ownership of seed sources which are commonly unimproved and low-yielding with improved high-yielding seeds developed by seed companies (either domestic or multinational) using modern science. Ultimately, smallholder farmers worldwide deserve new “seeds of hope”.
Paul Teng is Adjunct Senior Fellow, Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies at Nanyang Technological University Singapore. He has worked in the Asia Pacific region on agri-food issues for over thirty years, with international organizations, academia and the private sector.
Genevieve Donnellon-May is a master’s student in Water Science, Policy and Management at the University of Oxford. Genevieve’s research interests include China, Africa, transboundary governance, and the food-energy-water nexus.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
