Deja vu. UN: Shelf life

In the program of Alexander Podrabink "Dejavu"-Javier El Haj and Leon Saltiel

Alexander Podrabinek: The UN is sometimes called the world government. This, of course, is a very strong exaggeration, but there was a sound grain in this plan. An attempt to resolve international conflicts, delegating to a certain universal body of its representatives, is akin to the delegation of authority to their national government.

On October 24, the United Nations marks 70 years. As the poet wrote, "exactly seventy, mortal age." But this is for a person. And what about the UN?

Now the UN includes 193 countries. These are almost all the countries of our planet, with the exception of the Vatican, who does not want to join the UN, and Taiwan, who is not allowed there. Some countries, not recognized by the international community or partially recognized, have an observer status.

By the way, Taiwan was once at the UN. Being a free democratic country, he represented China there. In 1971, under the pressure of peace and socialism forces, Taiwan was expelled from the UN, and the communist Chinese People’s Republic took its place. In addition, with the right of a veto in the Security Council. Now all Taiwan’s attempts to return to the UN are blocked by Chinese communists.

In 1945, 50 countries established the UN, signing the charter, in the preamble of which it said:

Announcer: “We, the peoples of the United Nations, full of determination to save the upcoming generations from the disasters of the war ..., again to approve the faith in the basic rights of the human person, the dignity and value of the human person, in the equality of men and women and the equality of the rights of large and small nations ... and for these purposes to be tolerated and live together, in the world with each other, we decided to combine our efforts to achieve these goals."

Life teaches that all excellent intentions expressed by politicians should be treated at least skeptical

Alexander Podrabinek: Miraculous intentions! True, life teaches that all excellent intentions expressed by politicians should be treated at least skeptical. Does the practice of UN activity corresponded to the declared goals?

Says the head of the legal service of the American human rights organization Human Rights Foundation Javier El Haj .

Javier El Haje: Unfortunately, the conditions of membership at the UN do not reflect the purpose of protecting human rights, which is the main mission of the United Nations. This goal is declared in the UN Charter, as well as in the universal declaration of human rights .

The reason why the UN does not fulfill its mission is that out of 193 states that are sitting at the United Nations, about 55% are not democracies. These are states that systematically pursue political opponents and independent media.

Of the 193 states that are sitting at every Assembly at the UN, about 55% are not democracies

Nonemocratic states include full -fledged authoritarian regimes and dictatorships, which are about 30%here. Another 25% are competitive authoritarian regimes: not quite dictatorship, but not democracy. The opposition there seems to be legal, formally allowed it to exist, but she is constantly pursued, political opponents are put in prisons.

And only 45% of the UN member states have governments that respect human rights. These are legal representatives of the people who were chosen democratically.

Alexander Podrabinek: In the first lines of the UN Charter, the intention sounds "to again affirm faith in the basic human rights." This was not just the words on paper. In 1946, the Commission on Human Rights was created as part of the UN.

The plan itself was not at all bad. The commission was to monitor human rights violations in the most dysfunctional countries, prepare documents for its next meeting and accept the relevant resolutions for every dysfunctional country.

After that, malicious violators of human rights should have been covered with paint of burning shame and resign. However, neither the dictators nor their representatives at the UN did not burn out of shame and did not run away.

It was found that the commission is ineffective and discredited by the participation in its work of countries standing in the forefront of human rights violators

The commission waged an exorbitant intensive work-she met six weeks a year, in March-April. After 60 years of this exhausting labor, it suddenly found that the commission is ineffective and discredited by the participation in its work of countries standing in the forefront of human rights violators.

Resolutions with conviction of human rights violations were systematically torpedoed by such members of the commission as Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Zimbabwe, China, Cuba, Russia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia. The UN Human Rights Commission, obviously, from its inherent delicacy, spared many dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

From year to year, the commission was silently by the situation in China, where the fundamental rights of the human population of the planet were violated. In 2003, resolutions did not pass in Russia, Sudan and Zimbabwe, and Iran and China were not even discussed.

In 2004, they decided not to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe and Russia. In 2005, Iran, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were added to them. They closed their eyes to Chechnya. The regimes that touch their citizens felt freely.

In 2004, they decided not to discuss the situation in Zimbabwe and Russia. In 2005, Iran, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan were added to them. They closed their eyes to Chechnya. The regimes touching their citizens felt free

If we were not talking about the life and freedom of millions of people, then it would look anecdotal - the Human Rights Commission included China, Kube, Sudan and Zimbabwe. This is not to mention such countries, dubious, from the point of view of human rights standards as Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia or Saudi Arabia.

In 2003, the International Organization "Reporters without Borders" protested against the provision of the place of the chairman of the commission to the Libya delegate. Human rights activists argued that the chairmen in the commission of the representative of the dictatorial regime of Muammar Gaddafi would cover the UN shame.

Muammar Gaddafi: We must fully understand why we ignore the resolutions of the Security Council - because these resolutions are used exclusively against us, and not against those superpowers that have permanent places and the right of a veto. These powers never use resolutions against themselves.

Alexander Podrabinek: At the request of Cuba and Libya, “reporters without borders” for their accusations against the Muammar regime, Gaddafi was deprived of one year of advisory status under the Commission on Human Rights.

By the way, this decision was supported by Zimbabwe, Russia, China, Congo, Iran, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Uganda and Azerbaijan. What other decisions could be expected from the commission with such a composition of participants?

In the mid-2000s, the situation became unbearable. “The influential faction of negative states that have become members of the UN Communist Party in recent years (Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Syria and Zimbabwe) has united with China, Cuba and Russia to torpedo a number of important initiatives in individual countries,” said the international organization Human Rights Watch .

In the mid-2000s, the situation became unbearable

In 2006, the UN decided to reform the commission. Firstly, they changed the name: the commission became advice. Secondly, in order to improve the organization’s performance, the number of participating countries radically reduced: instead of 53 countries, it became 47. Thirdly, they began to gather several times a year and began to sit at the meetings longer. That, in fact, is all. What changed after the transformation of the Commission into the Human Rights Council in 2006?

Javier El Haji: Before in 2006, the Human Rights Commission was disbanded, a representative of Libya, a representative of Muammar Gaddafi, one of the worst dictators of the twentieth century, entered it. The Libyan government not only pursued, entered into prisons and killed its political opponents, but also killed them outside Libya. There are sad facts - the killers from Libya were heading to democratic countries to kill the political opponents of Muammar Gaddafi. These critics of the Libyan government lived in Europe and the United States.

So, representatives of such a government had to represent the Libyan state in the UN Human Rights Commission.

Today's Human Rights Council is completely identical to the previous UN Human Rights Commission

When all this happened, the UN Secretary General intervened in the situation, and ultimately the UN Human Rights Commission was disbanded.

In order to solve this problem, the UN Human Rights Council was created - a new body instead of a disbanded commission on human rights.

However, nothing, unfortunately, has changed. Today's Council on Human Rights is completely identical to the former UN Human Rights Commission.

Alexander Podrabinek: Since its creation, the Human Rights Council has been busy with its most loved ones, and, in essence, the only thing - the criticism of Israel and the protection of the rights of the Palestinians. All other regions fell out of the field of view of the Council. Anything can happen there - this does not concern advice.

By the way, the General Assembly can suspend the rights and privileges of the Council member countries with two thirds of its votes if they rudely and systematically violate human rights. For the entire time of the existence of the Council, only once a membership in the Council of Libya was suspended for 8 months, from March to November 2011.

This was done at the request of 70 human rights organizations, but probably not so much because the dictatorship of Colonel Gaddafi suddenly began to violate human rights, but because from February to October 2011 there was a civil war in Libya, and until October 23 it was not clear who won.

There is nothing surprising in such tolerance of the Council for violations of human rights. The resolution on the creation of the UN Human Rights Council states that "the members of the Council must support the highest standards in the field of promoting and protecting human rights."

However, according to the international human rights organization Freedom House , only less than half of 47 countries participating in the Council can be considered free and democratic.

Since its creation, the Human Rights Council has been busy with its most beloved and, in essence, the only thing - the criticism of Israel and the protection of the rights of Palestinians

It is enough to look at the current composition of the Human Rights Council. Among its members are China, Cuba, Russia, Congo, Indonesia, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia. Of course, the Council does not accept resolutions about human rights violations in these countries. The UN Human Rights Council has long become a friend of dictatorial regimes and the laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

After the First World War, the waring countries, horrified by the deed, decided to prevent anything like that from now on. In 1920, the League of Nations was created, the purpose of which was the disarmament, prevention of hostilities, ensuring collective security, resolving disputes between countries diplomatic and improving the quality of life on the planet.

However, it was not possible to prevent a global war. Some future aggressors, such as Germany, Italy and Japan, voluntarily left the League of Nations, others, such as the Soviet Union, were excluded from the league.

The baton from the League of Nations was accepted by the UN. This time, to prevent aggression and preserve the world, the international community decided to act more vigorously. The UN Security Council was allowed to make resolutions that order the UN armed forces to conduct peacekeeping operations.

Over the entire existence of the United Nations, about 70 peacekeeping operations were carried out

Over the entire existence of the United Nations, about 70 peacekeeping operations were carried out. The Blue Helmets of the UN acted mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America - in the countries of the so -called third world. Sometimes these operations were successful, sometimes not. Says an employee of the organization Un Watch Leon Saltiel .

Leon Saltiel: The UN Security Council has the authority to authorize humanitarian interventions. Sometimes they can authorize NATO interventions, as it was, for example, in the former Yugoslavia and then in Libya. The problem, however, is that the actions of the UN member countries are poorly coordinated, and no one tracks their consequences. Another example of the failure of an attempt to humanitarian intervention is Syria. The veto of Russia did not allow the UN to intervene and protect the innocent victims of the conflict.

Many serious conflicts were left without the intervention of "blue helmets"

Alexander Podrabinek: Many serious conflicts were left without the intervention of the "blue helmets". To send the UN peacekeeping forces in the conflict zone, a resolution of the Security Council was required, but permanent members of the Council could impose a veto on such resolutions. And the UN stayed away.

Javier El Haja: As for the intervention using international military forces to prevent mass repressions and genocide, these initiatives are always blocked. The only time after Libya, when this issue was posed to vote in the Security Council, it concerned the situation in Syria. This was the only time when the Security Council drew attention to this situation, but the resolution on sanctions was not adopted.

If Russia and China were democracies and did not feel sympathy for Bashar Assad, it is very likely that international sanctions would be applied to Syria. But after that, the United Nations would have to do the same in other cases, for example, when Russia captured Crimea. This situation, of course, would be considered by the Security Council, and it would have to respond accordingly.

If Russia and China were democracies and did not feel sympathy for Bashar Assad, it is very likely that international sanctions would be applied to Syria

Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council and has the right to veto. Therefore, such questions are not even taken to vote - after all, it is obvious that they will be rejected.

Alexander Podrabinek: The UN inability to always conduct the necessary peacekeeping operations led to partial loss of these functions with it. More precisely, to the replacement of the UN by other forces and structures.

In some cases, multinational coalition forces were created bypassing the UN, which tried to curb aggression and restore peace and order.

Leon Saltiel: According to international law, only the UN Security Council can authorize humanitarian interventions. Of course, there was an intervention in Iraq when the United States began military operations. They did not look for the approval of the Security Council. This is an example of military intervention besides the UN. Although it was not a humanitarian mission, but rather a military operation. For military operations, the UN mandate is not required.

Veto's right - stumbling block for the UN

Alexander Podrabinek: The right of a veto is a stumbling block for the UN. Not the only, but very serious. At the request of one security council, the current activities of the UN can be paralyzed.

It seems that when creating the UN, the right of veto was considered as an exceptional measure. Western countries were not going to use it. Encouraged by the general victory over Nazism, Western leaders counted on the consensus of winners in solving important international issues.

Naive Western calculations on the prudence of the Soviet Communists were not justified, and very soon. In the first 10 years, from 1946 to 1956, except for the USSR, not a single permanent member of the Security Council never used the right of a veto, and the Soviet Union used it 57 times.

This concerned the reception of new members, complaints about aggression, problems of disarmament, bacteriological weapons and other important issues. In total, during the activities of the UN of the USSR and Russia, a veto was used 100 times, the United States - 78, England - 28, France - 15 and China - 9 times.

The last veto applied by Russia on July 29 this year concerned the creation of a special international tribunal to investigate the MH17 flight catastrophe in July 2014 in Ukraine. As a result of the missile shelling by pro -Russian separatists of the Civil ship of the Malaysian Airlines, 298 people were tragically killed. What did this mean to Russia for the international community?

Leon Saltiel: I am not particularly familiar with this issue, but judging by the reports that I read, the investigation of Dutch experts showed that the rocket was released from weapons produced in Russia. This is a very serious accusation. I think that if this is important for Russia, it should insist on the investigation.

Alexander Podrabinek: Foreign Minister Pavel Klimkin , speaking on July 29 this year at the UN Security Council, appreciated the Russian position as follows.

We are talking about individual criminal liability for murder, we are not talking about politics

Pavel Klimkin: We are talking about individual criminal liability for murder, we are not talking about politics. Вот почему мы особо разочарованы тем, что одна страна – Россия – по-прежнему смешивает эти два совершенно различных вопроса: их ответственность за агрессию против Украины и продолжающуюся поддержку террористов, с одной стороны, и индивидуальную ответственность виновных в трагедии "Боинга", с другой. Не может быть никакого другого объяснения сегодняшнему российскому вето. Роль России в этом конфликте абсолютно ясна и хорошо известна. Российская Федерация только что убила этот проект резолюции, но это явное злоупотребление правом вето не позволит убить надежды тех, кто любил погибших, их семьи, их родственников, это лишь сделает нас сильнее, укрепит нашу решимость создать эффективный непредвзятый механизм для того, чтобы восторжествовало правосудие.

Александр Подрабинек: Ставшая уже очевидной неспособность ООН отвечать на вызовы времени побуждает политиков говорить о необходимости реформ. Президент Франции Франсуа Олланд .

Франция хотела бы, чтобы постоянные члены Совета Безопасности больше не прибегали к применению права вето в случае массовых жестокостей

​ Франсуа Олланд: Франция выступает за расширение состава Совета Безопасности, выступает за то, чтобы континенты взяли на себя ответственность за мир в Совете Безопасности. Франция хотела бы, чтобы постоянные члены Совета Безопасности больше не прибегали к применению права вето в случае массовых жестокостей. Как сделать, чтобы ООН не была парализованной, как сегодня, когда происходит наихудшее? Я заявляю здесь о готовности Франции никогда не применять право вето, когда совершаются массовые жестокости. Право вето, которое было введено, когда учреждалась ООН, – это не право блокировать, а право действовать.

Александр Подрабинек: Те же, кто в недееспособности ООН видит ключ к собственным успехам, любые реформы отвергают. Отказаться, хотя бы частично, от права вето? Never! No!

Геннадий Гатилов, заместитель министра иностранных дел России: Что касается права вето, которое в последнее время поднимается различными делегациями, … то у нас к этой инициативе достаточно сдержанное отношение.. Это не совсем верный подход… Эта идея несколько ущербна… Если мы хотим сохранить Совет Безопасности ООН работоспособным, то этот институт должен продолжать существовать.

Диктаторские и авторитарные режимы держатся за незыблемость ООН, как за спасательный круг

​ Александр Подрабинек: Диктаторские и авторитарные режимы держатся за незыблемость ООН, как за спасательный круг. Устоявшаяся система международных отношений оставляет им шанс на выживание.

Тут уместно вспомнить, как создавалась ООН. Название "Объединенные нации" в декабре 1941 года предложил для союзников по антигитлеровской коалиции президент США Франклин Рузвельт.

Принятая 1 января 1942 года на конференции союзников в Вашингтоне Декларация послужила основой для будущей Организации Объединенных Наций. Во время войны термин "объединенные нации" был синонимом союзников по антигитлеровской коалиции.

Решать мировые проблемы должны были победители

На последующих конференциях союзников в Ялте и Потсдаме все отчетливее вырисовывались очертания будущей международной организации, призванной решать мировые проблемы. Представители Соединенных Штатов, Англии и Советского Союза переносили военное сотрудничество на послевоенную жизнь. Решать мировые проблемы должны были победители.

Фрагмент документального фильма 1945 года "Берлинская Конференция":

Диктор: "В эти дни в Берлин прибывали делегации для участия в конференции руководителей трех союзных держав. Государственный секретарь Соединенных Штатов Америки господин Джеймс Бирнс. Министр иностранных дел Великобритании господин Иден. Господин Клемент Эттли. Премьер-министр Великобритании господин Уинстон Черчилль. Президент Соединенных Штатов Америки господин Трумэн. В Берлин для участия в конференции прибыл председатель Совета народных комиссаров Союза ССР генералиссимус Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин. В 5 часов вечера участники конференции встретились в зале заседаний".

Александр Подрабинек: Возможно, именно здесь произошла та родовая травма, которая сопровождала появление на свет ООН, а затем не позволила Организации Объединенных Наций вырасти в полноценное и дееспособное мировое правительство.

Циничное высказывание британского премьер-министра Уинстона Черчилля о готовности ради борьбы с Гитлером заключить союз хоть с дьяволом стало иллюстрацией и прологом к будущей беспомощности ООН.

Cотрудничество с коммунистической диктатурой в мирной жизни не имело оправданий

Союзнические отношения с СССР в борьбе с нацизмом, возможно, и были вызваны военной необходимостью, но сотрудничество с коммунистической диктатурой в мирной жизни не имело оправданий. Сам Черчилль скоро это понял и уже в 1946 году выступил в американском городе Фултон со своей знаменитой речью . But it was too late. Тоталитарный советский режим занял влиятельное место в ООН. Диктатура была легализована. Мирное сосуществование тирании и демократии в стенах одной международной организации было признано допустимым. Эта ситуация затем воспроизводилась неоднократно и воспроизводится до сих пор.

В результате ООН не стала "центром для согласования действий наций", как о том говорится в первой статье Устава. ООН вообще оказалась не объединением наций, а объединением правительств и их представителей.

ООН оказалась не объединением наций, а объединением правительств и их представителей

В этот политический клуб входят на равных как национальные представители, которых избрали демократическим путем, так и представители диктатур, которых никто, никогда и никуда не избирал.

Video:

Диктор: Выступая с трибуны Организации Объединенных наций, он помнил свои обещания.

Никита Хрущев: Суть наших предложений состоит в том, чтобы в течение четырех лет все государства осуществили бы полное разоружение и не имели больше средств ведения войны.

Диктор: Никита Сергеевич дает им бой перед лицом мира.

Никита Хрущев: Я бы сказал представителю правительства Соединенных Штатов Америки: у вас очень хорошая дружба, и вы считаете лучшим режим, который сейчас существует в франкийской Испании. Кто такой Франко? Франко – палач испанского народа, который разгромил парламент, свергнул законное правительство, избранное парламентом Испании.

Диктор: Председательствующий прерывает главу советского правительства и заявляет, что эти слова не будут включены в официальный протокол заседания.

Никита Хрущев: Я считаю, замечания совершенно неуместные, потому что – почему вы не остановили тогда, когда возводил клевету на режим великого Китая представитель Соединенных Штатов Америки? Это неодинаковые права, я отвергаю такие замечания. (аплодисменты) В Объединенных Нациях равные условия. Если наносят оскорбления социалистическим странам, мы не потерпим этого. Равных условий требуем!

Равноправие – это то, чего всегда требовали диктаторские режимы, выстраивая свои отношения с демократиями

​ Александр Подрабинек: Равноправие – это то, чего всегда требовали и требуют до сих пор диктаторские режимы, выстраивая свои отношения с демократиями. Ради этого они готовы на многое. А уж выступая в ООН, Никита Сергеевич Хрущев за словом в карман не лез, да и за туфлей, как известно, тоже. Все что угодно ради признания равноправия, суверенитета и законности беззаконной власти.

Это странное содружество, начатое еще в Ялте и Потсдаме, продолжается по сей день. Законно избранные президенты встречаются на генеральных ассамблеях с узурпаторами власти, и все делают вид, что это в порядке вещей. Они обмениваются рукопожатиями, любезностями, тостами и считают друг друга партнерами.

Международное сообщество не должно ставить знак равенства между свободой и тиранией

Потом все разъезжаются по домам и одни отчитываются перед своими избирателями или готовятся к новым выборам в обстановке конкурентной политической борьбы, а другие убивают своих политических оппонентов, истребляют собственные народы и пытаются поработить соседние.

Международное сообщество не должно ставить знак равенства между свободой и тиранией. Организация Объединенных Наций, которая легализует диктаторов, нуждается в полноценной замене. Срок годности ООН уже истек.