President Barack Obama may be steering clear of the Rio+20 summit, but thousands of government delegates, civil society activists, and business lobbyists are already streaming into Brazil.
April of this year marked the 21st anniversary since the UN Security Council accepted responsibility for trying to resolve the Western Sahara conflict through a referendum on self-determination. The referendum has never taken place, nor is it likely to ever happen. Nor, for that matter, is it likely that the conflict will be resolved through the mutually acceptable political solution that the Council has been asking for since April 2004.
On Saturday, Russia and China vetoed an otherwise unanimous UN Security Council resolution condemning the ongoing repression in Syria and calling for a halt to violence on all sides, unfettered access for Arab League monitors, and “a Syrian-led political transition to a democratic, plural political system, in which citizens are equal regardless of their affiliations or ethnicities or beliefs.”
Although the joint Russian and Chinese veto of the resolution is inexcusable, the self-righteous reaction by U.S. officials betrays hypocrisy on a grand scale and fails to take into account a series of policy blunders that have contributed to the tragic impasse.
After two cataclysmic world wars, the overriding concern for leaders of the day was engineering an international system that would increase state interdependence.
During the Bush administration, I wrote more than a dozen annotated critiques of presidential speeches. I have refrained from doing so under President Barack Obama, however, because – despite a number of disappointments with his administration’s policies — I found his speeches to be relatively reasonable. Although his September 21 address before the UN General Assembly contained a number of positive elements, in many ways it also contained many of the same kind of duplicitous and misleading statements one would have expected from his predecessor.
When President Barack Obama addressed the UN General Assembly in September 2010, he sounded hopeful that by the following year there would be “an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.” Sure enough, in September 2011, the Palestinians asked the UN Security Council to recognize a state of Palestine — but Obama ordered the U.S. delegate to veto the request. What gives?
Despite the efforts of the United Nations’ largest active peacekeeping force, several peace agreements among the belligerents, and a temporary six-month ban on mining earlier this year, conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) persists after nearly 15 years. It has been—and continues to be—a destructive conflict. More than 5.4 million perished in the region between 1998 and 2003, and an estimated 45,000 continue to die monthly due to malnutrition, disease, and violence.
The Philippines, Australia, and even China helped the United States defeat imperial Japan in World War II.
The world once again teeters on the brink of catastrophe, just as it did in the middle of the 20thcentury. Today, we face much more subtle threats – such as economic instability, climate change, weapons proliferation, and food shortages — than simply an axis of World War II adversaries. However, as with Hitler a half century ago, these issues constitute a tremendous threat to international security and world stability. They require the United States to once again broaden the purview of its foreign and military policy objectives and engage with its international partners to seek solutions.
The United Nations Information Organization served stark warnings to the Axis powers that their crimes would not go unpunished and it helped galvanize the American people into action as the defenders of liberty.