No “historic vote” at the UN: unfortunately the “world” has not condemned the Russian aggression
Those who voted against the sentence resolution or abstained represent 55 percent of the world population. The inadequacy of the UN is increasingly evident, not only useless but has become a field of action for the forces antagonistic to the West
The “one country, one vote” principle applies to the United Nations. So the vote of Tuvalu, for example, which has 11,792 inhabitants, or of Nauru, which has 10,834, has the same weight as that of China or India, which have 1.4 and 1.3 billion inhabitants respectively. Tuvalu and Nauru are two of the 141 countries that on March 2 approved the resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, put to a vote during the special emergency plenary session convened on February 28 by the United Nations. A resolution calling on Russia to suspend the use of force and withdraw its military "immediately, totally and unconditionally".
“This historic UN vote – said the President of the EU Council Charles Michel commenting on the result – gives a strong message against the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. The world has massively rejected this unwarranted aggression ”. Five days later, Russia doesn't appear to be caring about the world's rejection. On the other hand, the resolution, like many of those adopted by the General Assembly, has no binding legal value, does not bind the member states and does not entail consequences, for example sanctions, for those who do not respect its content. At the UN, dozens of countries continuously sign protocols, documents, declarations, resolutions and action plans – against child soldiers, torture, anti-personnel mines … – and then they don't even think about applying their content, but taking advantage of the rights and of the status granted to nations that, for having signed them, are classified as democratic and respectful of human rights.
Although not binding, the resolution on Ukraine nevertheless had undoubted political significance. “The invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation ushers in a new global era. UN member states must take sides, choose between peace and aggression ”. Defining the sides: this was essentially the outcome of the special session which culminated with the vote on March 2.
A global, unequivocal condemnation would indeed have been a significant achievement. But in reality the Assembly did not deliver a "strong message against the invasion of Ukraine", the world did not "massively reject this unwarranted aggression". It is not only because 35 states abstained, 5 voted against and 12 did not vote: in all, "only" 52 countries. The fact is that a system based, in the name of the right for all with equal dignity and weight, on the principle "one country one vote" indicates in which direction the majority of member states go, but not necessarily the majority of the planet's population. Today the Earth has just over 7.9 billion inhabitants, over half of whom live in seven states: China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Brazil and Nigeria. So if 186 states voted in favor of a resolution and seven against, and those seven were the most populous, the resolution would pass with an overwhelming majority, almost unanimous. But the 186 votes in favor would express the will of less than half of the world population.
Although with a different relationship, this is what happened on March 2nd. The 40 states that abstained or voted against the resolution represent more than 4 billion people: among these there are China, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan whose combined inhabitants alone exceed 3.2 billion. If we add the 12 countries that did not vote, we arrive at 4.38 billion, equal to 55 per cent of the global population. It is evident that the world has not massively rejected the invasion of Ukraine. The UN resolution is not only not legally binding, it also does not send a "strong message" to Russia. It was not a "historic vote".
But it is not the first time that the UN has presented a General Assembly resolution as a historic event, emphasizing the number of states that voted for it regardless of how much of humanity they represent. One of the most sensational cases was the resolution for the moratorium on the death penalty, approved on December 18, 2007 with 104 states in favor, 54 against, 29 abstentions and five absent (at the time the member countries were 192, now they are 193). . The outcome was announced "with immense emotion", there was talk of "a historic day for humanity". But, counting the inhabitants, more than two thirds of the world population did not come out in favor of the moratorium and it was subsequently necessary to re-propose the resolution three more times (in 2008, 2010 and 2016).
For some time, the UN has been in the habit of amplifying the importance of its initiatives by presenting them as "historical moments", "historical achievements of humanity", "watershed in human history". In 2009, here is another example, UNICEF triumphantly gave the "historic" announcement that by 2015 no one would die of malaria anymore thanks to the interventions adopted by the UN to eradicate the disease. Instead, malaria continues to be one of the greatest threats to humanity. In 2020, the latest global data available, there were 241 million cases, 14 million more than in 2019, and 627,000 people died, 69,000 more than the previous year.
In the light of the current dramatic events, it would be necessary to seriously reflect on the role and function of this self-celebrating organism, while its inadequacy as an instrument of mediation and conflict resolution, of convergence on common, shared principles, is increasingly evident. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, for some decades now, the UN, of which Western countries are the major financiers, has become a field of action for the forces antagonistic to the West, both internal and external to it, which have transformed it into an instrument and at the same time collision object.
The post No "historic vote" at the UN: unfortunately the "world" did not condemn the Russian aggression appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL https://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/nessun-voto-storico-allonu-purtroppo-il-mondo-non-ha-condannato-laggressione-russa/ on Thu, 10 Mar 2022 03:47:00 +0000.