SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
un charter
Failures of World Leaders Risk Collapse of International Order
To step back from the precipice we are at, those in positions of power must show long-view leadership to build a better world for current and future generations. But time is running out.
Jun 01, 2024
Note: At the conclusion of their board meeting in São Paulo, The Elders this week called on world leaders to uphold international law and prioritize multilateral cooperation to build a better world for current and future generations. The following was their message to those leaders and the world at large.
The world stands on the edge of a precipice. The foundations of international law and multilateral cooperation are at serious risk of collapse due to cumulative failures of political leadership. We face the most perilous moment since the Second World War.
The United Nations and other institutions created to promote the stability and accountability that come through the rule of law are under attack. The growing climate of impunity for states and leaders, who show no respect for the principles on which they were founded, may take us to a point of no return.
The principles of the UN Charter risk being subsumed by aggressive nationalism and great power rivalry. This is not in any state’s long-term interest, given the existential threats to humanity that can only be tackled by global cooperation within a framework of agreed rules.
The rule of law must be applied consistently. Double standards allow autocrats to frame the universal values of human rights and international law enshrined in the UN Charter as Western constructs. They are not. They serve the interests of every country.
International law must be applied universally. No country is above the law. But the double standards being displayed by some states, particularly the most powerful, weaken the credibility of global institutions charged with upholding the rule of law.
Russia’s war on Ukraine remains an act of aggression against a sovereign state and a fundamental attack on the UN Charter with global ramifications. Russian leaders must be held accountable. We support the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) efforts to bring them to justice.
The ICC and the International Court of Justice are both fulfilling their mandates to hold parties in the Israel-Hamas conflict to account under international law.
We oppose any attempts to de-legitimize this work, and threats of punitive measures and sanctions against the ICC Prosecutor or other officials.
The rule of law must be applied consistently. Double standards allow autocrats to frame the universal values of human rights and international law enshrined in the UN Charter as Western constructs. They are not. They serve the interests of every country.
The crumbling of the international order can be seen in the proliferation of conflicts, neglected by the world’s leaders and media, affecting 2 billion people in countries including Myanmar, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti.
The failure last week to agree a new pandemics treaty for approval by the World Health Assembly is another example of weak leadership. Scientists are clear that we risk another lethal pandemic. The world has not learned the lessons from COVID-19. We urgently need leaders to engage directly to secure a global agreement to prepare for, prevent and respond to such pandemics, so the world can cope better next time.
With vital negotiations approaching on the future of the world’s climate and biodiversity, countries must have confidence that when they make agreements with each other, those commitments will be implemented.
Now is the time for leaders to be honest with their people. The unpredictability and instability that comes when the rule of law is not guaranteed threatens the security of all countries. In a year of multiple elections, citizens also have a responsibility to cast their vote wisely, choosing leaders who take a longer view of protecting their interests, and rejecting populists who exploit fears and foster division for short-term gain.
As we conclude our board meeting in Brazil, we look to the country’s leadership to seize the opportunities presented by November’s G20 Summit and the major climate conference (COP30) in 2025, to work with other countries on restoring the credibility of the multilateral system and the trust which underpins it.
To step back from the precipice we are at, those in positions of power must show long-view leadership to build a better world for current and future generations. But time is running out to strengthen the institutions that make possible the collaboration needed to do so.
The Elders are:
Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and Chair of The Elders
Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary-General and Deputy Chair of The Elders
Graça Machel, Founder of the Graça Machel Trust, Co-founder and Deputy Chair of The Elders
Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and former Director-General of the WHO
Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former head of the UN Development Programme
Elbegdorj Tsakhia, former President and Prime Minister of Mongolia
Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and co-chair of the Taskforce on Justice
Denis Mukwege, physician and human rights advocate, Nobel Peace Laureate
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia and Nobel Peace Laureate
Juan Manuel Santos, former President of Colombia and Nobel Peace Laureate
Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico
The United Nations and other institutions created to promote the stability and accountability that come through the rule of law are under attack. The growing climate of impunity for states and leaders, who show no respect for the principles on which they were founded, may take us to a point of no return.
The principles of the UN Charter risk being subsumed by aggressive nationalism and great power rivalry. This is not in any state’s long-term interest, given the existential threats to humanity that can only be tackled by global cooperation within a framework of agreed rules.
The rule of law must be applied consistently. Double standards allow autocrats to frame the universal values of human rights and international law enshrined in the UN Charter as Western constructs. They are not. They serve the interests of every country.
International law must be applied universally. No country is above the law. But the double standards being displayed by some states, particularly the most powerful, weaken the credibility of global institutions charged with upholding the rule of law.
Russia’s war on Ukraine remains an act of aggression against a sovereign state and a fundamental attack on the UN Charter with global ramifications. Russian leaders must be held accountable. We support the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) efforts to bring them to justice.
The ICC and the International Court of Justice are both fulfilling their mandates to hold parties in the Israel-Hamas conflict to account under international law.
We oppose any attempts to de-legitimize this work, and threats of punitive measures and sanctions against the ICC Prosecutor or other officials.
The rule of law must be applied consistently. Double standards allow autocrats to frame the universal values of human rights and international law enshrined in the UN Charter as Western constructs. They are not. They serve the interests of every country.
The crumbling of the international order can be seen in the proliferation of conflicts, neglected by the world’s leaders and media, affecting 2 billion people in countries including Myanmar, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Haiti.
The failure last week to agree a new pandemics treaty for approval by the World Health Assembly is another example of weak leadership. Scientists are clear that we risk another lethal pandemic. The world has not learned the lessons from COVID-19. We urgently need leaders to engage directly to secure a global agreement to prepare for, prevent and respond to such pandemics, so the world can cope better next time.
With vital negotiations approaching on the future of the world’s climate and biodiversity, countries must have confidence that when they make agreements with each other, those commitments will be implemented.
Now is the time for leaders to be honest with their people. The unpredictability and instability that comes when the rule of law is not guaranteed threatens the security of all countries. In a year of multiple elections, citizens also have a responsibility to cast their vote wisely, choosing leaders who take a longer view of protecting their interests, and rejecting populists who exploit fears and foster division for short-term gain.
As we conclude our board meeting in Brazil, we look to the country’s leadership to seize the opportunities presented by November’s G20 Summit and the major climate conference (COP30) in 2025, to work with other countries on restoring the credibility of the multilateral system and the trust which underpins it.
To step back from the precipice we are at, those in positions of power must show long-view leadership to build a better world for current and future generations. But time is running out to strengthen the institutions that make possible the collaboration needed to do so.
The Elders are:
Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and Chair of The Elders
Ban Ki-moon, former UN Secretary-General and Deputy Chair of The Elders
Graça Machel, Founder of the Graça Machel Trust, Co-founder and Deputy Chair of The Elders
Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway and former Director-General of the WHO
Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and former head of the UN Development Programme
Elbegdorj Tsakhia, former President and Prime Minister of Mongolia
Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and co-chair of the Taskforce on Justice
Denis Mukwege, physician and human rights advocate, Nobel Peace Laureate
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former President of Liberia and Nobel Peace Laureate
Juan Manuel Santos, former President of Colombia and Nobel Peace Laureate
Ernesto Zedillo, former President of Mexico
'Unhinged' Israeli Ambassador Literally Shreds UN Charter Ahead of Palestine Vote
"Shame on you," said Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan shortly before the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution supporting full membership for Palestine.
May 10, 2024
Shortly before the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution Friday supporting full U.N. membership for Palestine, Israel's ambassador took to the podium and put a prop copy of the U.N.'s founding document through a handheld paper shredder.
In a speech that one journalist described as "unhinged," Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Gilad Erdan described Palestinians as "modern-day Nazis" and condemned the U.N. General Assembly for choosing to "reward" them with "rights and privileges."
"You are shredding the U.N. Charter with your own hands," Erdan said as he fed a small copy of the document through a miniature paper shredder. "Shame on you."
Watch:
Watch: Israeli ambassador to the UN @giladerdan1 used a paper shredder to shred the UN charter on the podium of the UN general assembly ahead of a vote that will give new privileges to the Palestinians at the UN pic.twitter.com/mWQ85c8uwK
— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) May 10, 2024
Erdan's bizarre performance came just before the U.N. General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution urging the Security Council to reconsider Palestine's request to become a full U.N. member following a U.S. veto last month. Palestine is currently a nonmember observer state of the U.N.
The General Assembly voted by a margin of 143 to 9—with 25 abstentions—in support of the resolution. The nine countries that voted no were the United States, Israel, Argentina, Czechia, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, and Papua New Guinea.
In addition to backing its bid for full U.N. membership, the resolution gives Palestine "the right to introduce and co-sponsor proposals as well as amendments within the assembly," The Guardian reported.
Riyad Mansour, Palestine's permanent observer at the U.N., said ahead of Friday's vote that support for the resolution "is a vote for Palestinian existence."
"I stand before you as lives continue falling apart in the Gaza Strip," said Mansour, noting that "more than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed, 80,000 have been maimed, 2 million have been displaced, and everything has been destroyed" by Israeli forces over the past seven months.
"No words can capture what such loss and trauma signifies for Palestinians," Mansour added.
"The U.S. and Israel are isolated and the world is on the side of Palestine."
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, called the U.N. General Assembly's passage of the resolution "an unprecedented move that shows once again how unbelievably isolated [U.S. President Joe] Biden has made the U.S."
In anticipation of Friday's vote, a group of Republican U.S. senators led by Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) introduced legislation that would halt U.S. funding for any entity—including the U.N.—that gives Palestine "any status, rights, or privileges beyond observer status."
Current law requires the U.S. to "cut off funding to U.N. agencies that give full membership to a Palestinian state—which could mean a cutoff in dues and voluntary contributions to the U.N. from its largest contributor," The Associated Press reported Friday.
Craig Mokhiber, a former U.N. official who resigned in October over the body's failure to act in the face of Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza, wrote that Friday's vote further shows that "the U.S. and Israel are isolated and the world is on the side of Palestine."
The Cynical Reason Biden Let the UN Pass a Gaza Cease-Fire Resolution
Though the administration ad no intention of allowing the United Nations to pressure Israel to accept a cease-fire, allowing the resolution to pass was important for political reasons.
Apr 11, 2024
On March 25, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2728 calling for a bilateral cease-fire in Gaza for the remaining two weeks of Ramadan, along with other provisions. It made headlines in large part because the United States did not veto it as it had previous cease-fire resolutions. The Biden administration, however, had no intention for the resolution to actually take effect.
The United States was the only country in the 15-member United Nations body not to vote in favor, once again demonstrating its isolation in the international community. The Biden administration had threatened to veto the original draft resolution calling for a permanent cease-fire, only agreeing to not cast a veto in return for dropping the word “permanent.”
The other changes the Biden administration insisted on are revealing: While it “demands” that Hamas release Israeli hostages, the United States made sure that the resolution only “emphasizes the urgent need” to get desperately needed aid to Palestinians, without mentioning that it is Israel that is preventing it.
The Biden administration is trying to create an impression that they are supporting the United Nations to bring an end to the fighting when, in fact, they are not.
The United States had initially pressed for the resolution to condemn Hamas while not condemning Israel, but it condemned neither. According to U.S. officials, the failure to single out Hamas for condemnation was the primary reason the United States did not vote in favor.
Despite a decision by Israel to delay a meeting in Washington in protest of the U.S. refusal to veto, White House spokesperson John Kirby insisted, “Nothing, nothing has changed about our policy. Nothing.”
But there was one possible difference the non-veto may have indicated: While the resolution demanded both a temporary cease-fire and the unconditional release of hostages, it was the first time the United States allowed for even a temporary cease-fire resolution to pass without conditioning it on a hostage release.
Even after Israel’s killing of seven humanitarian aid workers, an administration official quoted by Politico emphasized that President Joe Biden’s public statement demonstrating his upset at Israel killing seven humanitarian aid workers was “all we have planned” in regard to holding Israel accountable. And, responding to reporters’ questions about whether there will be any consequences to Israel’s ongoing violations, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby responded, “We are still supporting Israel’s ability to defend itself against this still-viable threat. And that’s going to continue.”
U.S. officials immediately made clear that they would not allow the resolution to be enforced. Indeed, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Greenfield-Thomas, echoed by other Biden administration officials, insisted that the resolution was somehow “non-binding.” This led to a storm of protests, even from conservative allies like the United Kingdom, citing Article 25 of the U.N. Charter which declares that “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” Indeed, a landmark 1971 decision by the International Court of Justice confirmed that Security Council resolutions were indeed binding under international law.
There is also a broad consensus of international legal scholars that such resolutions are obligatory, particularly when the language of the resolution includes the word “demands” in the operational clauses. Despite this, they are not enforceable unless enacted under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, which the United States has refused to allow in the case of Israel and other allies.
The Biden administration’s audacious claim that U.N. Security Council resolutions are non-binding is, therefore, not simply a means of relieving pressure on Israel’s right-wing government, but an apparent attempt to undermine the international legal system in place since World War II.
Biden’s attitude towards the enforceability of U.N. Security Council resolutions has varied throughout his career, depending on the geopolitical alignment of the countries in question.
As a senator, Biden was quite willing to support enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions if they targeted countries not in good standing with Washington, such as Serbia, Angola, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya, among others, which found themselves on the receiving end of a number of international sanctions designed as a result of their non-compliance.
Biden even justified his support for the invasion of Iraq in part in order to “enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq” on the grounds that it “is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary.”
At the time of that resolution, however, there were nearly 100 other U.N. Security Council resolutions violated by countries other than Iraq, including 30 by Israel and all but two by other countries allied with or on friendly terms with the United States, yet no record of Biden demanding enforcement of any of them.
Perhaps most revealing of Biden’s double standards was in regard to U.N. Security Council Resolution 520, passed in 1982, which called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. Israel—which was the only country with troops in that country mentioned by name—remained in violation of that resolution for 18 years, along with no less than nine other previous U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding their withdrawal. At no point during that period is there any record of Biden ever calling for its enforcement.
As President, Biden has supported strict sanctions on Iran and North Korea due to their violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs and delivery systems, but has blocked U.N. Security Council resolutions targeting Israel (UNSC Res. 487) as well as India and Pakistan (UNSC Res. 1172) regarding their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Though Biden had no intention of allowing the United Nations to pressure Israel to accept a cease-fire, allowing the resolution to pass was important for political reasons. The United States has been isolated in the international community over its opposition to a cease-fire, and was one of only 10 countries in the 193-member U.N. General Assembly to vote against a cease-fire resolution. The remaining nine were either tiny Pacific island states dependent on U.S. aid or those under far-right governments.
This has led to growing criticism, both internationally and domestically, as polls showed a solid majority of Americans supporting a cease-fire, with increasing indications that Biden’s obstructionist policies at the United Nations might be threatening his re-election prospects. Though initially only willing to consider a “pause” in the fighting under certain conditions, in early March the administration—in an apparent effort to assuage anti-war sentiments—began using the word “cease-fire,” though they were still only referring to a pause and did not represent any shift in policy.
And, last month, the United States introduced what it claimed was a cease-fire resolution before the Security Council. However, instead of “demanding a cease-fire,” it merely urged the U.N. to “determine the imperative” of a cease-fire and that it be “in connection with the release of all remaining hostages.” Four countries voted no, including China and Russia, thereby defeating the measure.
The Biden administration is trying to create an impression that they are supporting the United Nations to bring an end to the fighting when, in fact, they are not. Just days after Israel categorically rejected abiding by Resolution 2728, The Washington Post reported that Biden had approved billions’ of dollars’ worth of bombs, missiles, and jet fighters to enable Israel to continue to wage war.
By allowing the resolution to pass, Biden is trying to convince voters he supports a cease-fire, even while he simultaneously prevents the United Nations from enforcing its resolution and provides Israel with the means to violate it.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.