Day: December 23, 2023

By Arul Louis

While in the outgoing year, attention was focused on the world organisation’s paralysis in Ukraine and Israel, the UN was forced to retreat from other countries riven by deadly conflicts in a stark display of its limitations.

Unlike Ukraine and Israel, these were countries where the UN had an active presence trying to keep the peace as rival factions and insurgencies created havoc of deaths, human rights violations, and destruction.

These setbacks show the limits to what the UN can do, even when the veto-wielding powers free the Security Council to act.

On December 11, the UN ended its mission in Mali, one of its deadliest that has claimed the lives of 310 peacekeepers, bowing to its military rulers who ordered out its 10,000 personnel.

In November, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) signed an agreement with the UN, which has had peacekeeping operations in that country for about 25 years, to fast-track the withdrawal of about 15,000 peacekeepers earlier than the next December deadline.

While a UN official warned of a risk of genocide in Sudan, the Security Council accepted on December 1 the military government’s demand to end its political mission.

Having already witnessed the killings of thousands, these three countries are at risk of the conflicts continuing in the coming months, veiled by a pall of global apathy and away from TV cameras.

There aren’t any fashionable protesters marching around the world against the killings, mutilations and sexual violence perpetrated on a massive scale there.

The first factor behind the UN’s inability to prevent wars, civil wars, other conflicts, and massive terrorism is that it is not a world government, even though it is often imagined to be.

The UN Charter does give the Security Council powers to order “demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the UN” to maintain international peace.

But such unilateral action is not realistic, least of all because of the consensus that would be required of the permanent members.

And as a practical matter, the Security Council does not send peacekeepers into a country that does not want them there.

There is also peacekeeping fatigue after futile efforts.

Haiti would want peacekeepers back in to quell the gangs that have taken over vast swatches of the country. Still, after dismal failures and a cholera epidemic blamed on UN peacekeepers, the Security Council is not going back after ending a 13-year mission there in 2017.

Instead, it authorised an international force led by Kenya to help bring order to that country; that effort, though, is stuck in litigation in Kenya.

And there is peacekeeping fatigue among the countries where missions were deployed.

Mali’s Foreign Minister Abdoulaye Diop told the Security Council in June that the mission, known by its French initials MINUSMA, was unable to “adequately respond to the security situation,” and it doesn’t look any better.

DRC Foreign Minister Christophe Lutundula echoed him, saying that UN mission there, also known by the French initials MONUSCO, “has proved its limits in a context of permanent war”, without restoring peace.

Sudan disappointed 

In the same vein, Sudan’s acting Foreign Minister, Ali Sadeq, wrote to Secretary-General António Guterres that his country was disappointed by the performance of the political mission, the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan (UNITAMS), which had fewer than 250 personnel and had a mediatory role in trying to end the conflicts.

Earlier, Guterres’s Special Envoy for Sudan, Volker Perthes, was declared a persona non grata and had to leave the assignment.

Between 2003 and 2005, more than 200,000 people were victims of the genocide in Darfur.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, warned last month of a repeat: “Twenty years ago, the world was shocked by the terrible atrocities and human rights violations in Darfur. We fear a similar dynamic might be developing.”

Reasons for the shortcomings of these and other operations, India, the biggest troop contributor to UN missions, has repeatedly said, is the lack of a clear mandate from the Security Council, not involving the troop contributors in decisions and inadequate equipment.

By Dr. Ross Bellaby

In the ever-evolving landscape of global geopolitics, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as a focal point of strategic importance. Amidst the backdrop of the rising geopolitical tensions, the SCO’s activities have garnered significant attention. Given its expanding membership, the SCO shows global ambitions with a desire to influence both regional and global events.

Established in 2001, the SCO initially included Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan as member states. Over the years, its sphere of influence has widened significantly, encompassing India, Iran, Pakistan as member states, Afghanistan, Belarus, and Mongolia as observer states, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Turkey as “Dialogue Partners.” The recent inclusion of Saudi Arabia, along with Qatar and Egypt signing memoranda in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, marks a noteworthy expansion in its reach. Collectively, these nations represent a substantial portion of the Asian continent, contributing to 30% of the world’s GDP and comprising 40% of the global population. This extensive reach underscores the SCO’s potential as a formidable multilateral organization.

The SCO’s stated objectives revolve around strengthening member relations, fostering cooperation, ensuring peace and security, and advocating for a “new, democratic, just, and rational political and economic international order.” These goals may indicate an intention to reshape international relations and perhaps challenge the existing world order, potentially offering an alternative to the global system.

In the current geopolitical climate, and heightened tensions between major powers, the SCO’s role becomes increasingly pivotal. The SCO’s collective stance on key international issues could significantly sway global opinions and policies.

The SCO’s influence extends beyond mere economic and demographic might. Its members’ strategic locations, natural resources, and military capabilities make it a key player in regional security dynamics. The organization’s focus on joint security initiatives and counter-terrorism efforts highlights its role in shaping regional peace and stability. Moreover, the SCO’s emphasis on economic cooperation and connectivity, particularly through projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, positions it as a catalyst for regional economic integration and development.

As Kazakhstan assumes the chairmanship of the SCO from July 2023 to July 2024, a distinctive approach within the organization comes to the fore. Kazakhstan’s tenure at the helm is poised to influence the SCO’s trajectory, especially in the context of its multi-vector foreign policy. This policy approach involves engaging with multiple global powers and regional blocs simultaneously, avoiding over-reliance on any single entity while promoting national interests. In practice, it means navigating a diplomatic path that seeks cooperative relationships with a diverse range of countries and organizations. Such a strategy allows Kazakhstan to maintain a degree of autonomy and flexibility in international affairs. This approach suggests a continued opposition to bloc and ideological approaches to security challenges, offering a nuanced balance within the SCO.

Kazakhstan’s National Coordinator for the SCO, Murat Mukushev, has articulated a vision for a balanced development across all areas of cooperation, encompassing security, trade, economy, culture, and humanitarian efforts. This indicates a comprehensive strategy, moving beyond the conventional security and economic focus, to encompass broader aspects of cooperation.

The Central Asian country has previously stated its intention to use the SCO chairmanship to promote reforms, aiming to transform the group into a “practical and effective platform.” This objective signifies a move towards more grounded and action-oriented collaboration within the SCO, especially in areas of trade and security cooperation.

Kazakhstan’s plan to propose the adoption of “On Global Unity for a Just World and Harmony” is a strategic move. This document outlines principles for strengthening confidence-building measures and ensuring global security, in line with Kazakhstan’s non-bloc approach. Furthermore, Kazakhstan’s initiative to establish the UN Regional Center for Sustainable Development Goals in Almaty, with a focus on Central Asia and Afghanistan, underscores a commitment to issues that are also relevant to the countries of the West. This may be an area of cooperation between the two sides.

Ultimately, the SCO, under Kazakhstan’s current chairmanship, is set to embark on a path emphasizing balanced development and practical cooperation, veering away from bloc or ideologically driven security dynamics. As a result, the SCO’s focus might shift towards more inclusive and diverse forms of collaboration, acknowledging and addressing the varied interests and concerns of its members. This could lead to more sustainable and cooperative solutions to the region’s challenges. The planned SCO summit in Astana next year will be a crucial moment to observe. It will provide insights into how Kazakhstan’s leadership and its multi-vector foreign policy approach is shaping the organization’s strategies and responses to the complex tapestry of contemporary regional and global challenges.

The SCO, with its expanding membership and ambitious goals, stands at a critical juncture in its quest for greater global influence. As it navigates the complex interplay of regional and international politics, the SCO’s actions and decisions can certainly leave a mark on the global stage. Its ability to effectively leverage its collective strength and strategically position itself will determine its role in shaping the future geopolitical landscape.

• About the author: Dr Ross Bellaby is a Senior Lecturer in Security Studies at Sheffield University, UK.
• Source: This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

The Houthis, which control north Yemen, have been fighting against a Saudi-led military alliance since 2015 in a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands and left 80% of Yemen’s population dependent on humanitarian aid.

The U.N. special envoy, Hans Grundberg, in a statement issued by his office said he “welcomes the parties” commitment to a set of measures to implement a nationwide cease-fire, improve living conditions in Yemen, and engage in preparations for the resumption of an inclusive political process under U.N. auspices.”

Grundberg “will now engage with the parties to establish a roadmap under U.N. auspices that includes these commitments and supports their implementation,” the statement said.

The roadmap, along with a cease-fire, will also include the two sides’ commitment to resume oil exports, pay all public sector salaries, open roads in Taiz and other parts of Yemen, and “further ease restrictions on Sanaa Airport and the Hudaydah port,” the statement said.

The Saudi-led military coalition intervened more than eight years ago against the Houthi movement after it ousted Yemen’s internationally recognized, Saudi-backed government from Sanaa, the capital, in 2014.

The Saudi-backed government’s foreign ministry welcomed the special envoy’s statement on “the efforts made to reach a road map under the auspices of the United Nations to end the war caused by the Houthi militia,” Yemeni state news agency SABA reported.

The Houthi movement did not immediately comment when contacted by Reuters.

Houthi officials in September visited Riyadh for the first time since the war broke out. That followed a first round of Omani-mediated consultations between Riyadh and Sanaa, running in parallel to U.N. peace efforts, when Saudi envoys visited Sanaa in April.

The peace initiatives gained momentum after archrivals Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to reestablish ties in a deal brokered by China. A permanent cease-fire in Yemen would mark a milestone in stabilizing the Middle East.

“Grundberg expressed his deep appreciation for the key roles played by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Sultanate of Oman in supporting the parties to reach this point.”

“He urged all parties to exercise maximum restraint at this critical time to allow for a conducive environment for dialogue and the successful conclusion of agreement on the roadmap.”