michelemichele

Global Voices
TheStar.com | Global Voices | UN vetoes exact a toll on humanity
UN vetoes exact a toll on humanity
Oct 13, 2008 04:30 AM
Comments on this story (2)
Marc Kielburger
Craig Kielburger

It would seem Robert Mugabe's reputation precedes him.

This past year, the world watched as the 84-year-old Zimbabwean leader terrorized his own people after the disputed presidential election.

After Mugabe was controversially re-elected in March, people across Zimbabwe faced violence, torture and even death for opposing his rule. By July, the opposition party said 113 had died in the conflict. All the while, inflation pushed 2.2 million per cent and food ran short on store shelves.

At the height of the crisis, the United Nations Security Council moved to put arms sanctions on Mugabe and restrict his travel outside the country. It seemed like a sure-fire pass until two permanent members – China and Russia – vetoed the resolution.

The United Kingdom called the veto incomprehensible while the United States questioned Russia's reliability as a partner in the G-8. Mugabe welcomed the news and continued to tighten his fist over Zimbabwe.

"I do not think the veto by China and by Russia can be easily justified," said Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the United Kingdom. "I do not think it can be easily defended, given what we know is happening in Zimbabwe."

But, for China and Russia, the reason was simple. They claimed it was not the Security Council's responsibility to sanction Mugabe – the situation did not threaten international security.

Despite these claims, there was, perhaps, a far more glaring reason for the veto.

You might remember the An Yue Jiang – a ship laden with Chinese-made arms bound for Zimbabwe this past April. Thankfully, the ship was turned back after South African dock workers protested unloading the cargo. But the ship stands as a symbol of the very lucrative arms trade that China conducts with Zimbabwe.

It's important to point out that China is not alone in its motives. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council has interests in some controversial places. And, when they wield their veto power for their own political and economic reasons rather than security, it calls the legitimacy of the council into question.

Veto power is held by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and enables them to prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. Throughout the Cold War, the United States and then-U.S.S.R. used their veto power against each other. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, that power has been used more sparingly.

Still, the existence of the veto determines how the council conducts business.

Both by actually using the veto and threatening to use it, each permanent member can unilaterally shape the direction of a resolution.

Over the years, it has become common for the council to remove certain language that weakens the resolution to make it pass. Certain conflicts are left out altogether.

Robert Mugabe is just the latest example. The Zimbabwean dictator is still commander of the armed forces. Without sanctions on arms, he can buy and use them.

There are many arguments to be made for Security Council reform. Some would even argue the effectiveness of the United Nations depends on it.

Until that time, it's important to remember that every veto has consequences. Those consequences should never be paid for in human lives.

Craig and Marc Kielburger are children's rights activists and co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world. Online: Craig and Marc Kielburger discuss global issues every Monday in the World & Comment section. Take part in the discussion online at thestar.com/globalvoices.


The UN

...is only as good as its strongest member states. This time it's Russia & China undermining it; often the US does. Common good is usually meaningless to powerful nations: instead, they look at common interests. It's depressing.

Posted by michelemichele at 6:00 PM Monday, October 13 2008

* Agree
* |
* Disagree
* |
* Offensive

joke

the un is a joke. they pass resolutions and wont enforce them.what we need is an organization of democratic countries to replace the un. I'm tired of dictators telling the rest of the world what to do.

Posted by jckla at 11:01 AM Monday, October 13 2008

* Agree 5
* |
* Disagree 3
* |
* Offensive

Will they EVER receive the help they desperately need?????

Would someone please explain to me why? Why in all these years these people are not getting help??? Wars are being fought for freedom, or so we're told. Why after all this time are people of the world not "rushing" in to help???? It makes no sense to me at all.

Posted by Changes at 9:05 AM Monday, October 13 2008

* Agree 6
* |
* Disagree 2
* |
* Offensive

TheStar.com | Global Voices | UN vetoes exact a toll on humanity

__________________
(((start the music)))

Heretic

It bares repeating that there should no longer be any permanent members of the Security Council and that any nation must have no human rights violations if they want a spot on the council.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!