- An empty chair at the UN can speak more eloquently than yet another speech.
National Post
By Father Raymond J. de Souza
23 October 2013
New York City — This week, United Nations diplomats are rubbing their eyes in disbelief over Saudi Arabia’s decision to decline a seat on the UN Security Council. That has never happened before. And the rejection undermines the entire premise of diplomacy, which is that one must always have a seat at the table — no matter what seat, no matter which table.
The Security Council consists of five permanent members — the Americans, Chinese, Russians, British and French — and 10 other countries elected by the General Assembly for rotating two-year terms. A seat on the Security Council is considered the ne plus ultra of UN diplomacy. In 2010, Canada failed to get a Security Council seat and the federal government’s critics hooted with derision about the embarrassment. The government replied that it was Canada’s punishment for its principled human rights stands and support for Israel, and so decided to wear its rejection as a badge of honour.
The Saudis have decided that the Security Council itself is in disgrace. They offered two reasons for their rejection of their seat, the first of which was a ritual denunciation of the UN for not solving the Palestinian issue. The second reason was the substantive one, namely a protest against the Security Council’s role in Syria.
Any meaningful UN action has to be approved by the Security Council — sanctions, blockades, inspections, bombings, invasions. Any one of the five permanent members can veto any resolution. The effect of this, over the last two years, has been to give Russia a veto over UN policy in Syria.
Russia is an ally of Syria’s Assad regime: Moscow views the Syria-Hezbollah-Iran axis as an opportunity to restore Russian influence in the region. The Saudis, on the other hand, have been seeking to limit Iranian influence in the Arab world. Whatever malign influence the Saudis exercise in the world as facilitators of Sunni Islamist extremism, they consider themselves to be moderate in comparison to their Shiite Iranian rivals across the Persian Gulf.
The Saudis back the rebels in Syria, and have been supremely frustrated that the international community has done nothing to seriously weaken the Assad regime. When the Security Council finally did act last month, it was to secure Assad’s legitimacy and eliminate any threat of international military action, with the ancillary effect of increasing the prestige of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and humiliating U.S. President Barack Obama. Saudi Arabia concluded that it would have been better if the Security Council had done nothing. From there, it is a short step to the conclusion that there is little point in joining this body. Indeed, Saudi Arabia likely expects that the emboldened Russians and weakened Americans may well lead the Security Council toward a conciliatory policy toward Iran, and wants nothing to do with that whatsoever.
There is something to the Saudi position. Outside of the few blocks around the UN, no one would have noticed if Saudi Arabia had taken up its place in the usual fashion. Reform of the Security Council is perpetually bruited when discussing the effectiveness of the UN, but nothing is ever done about it. Given that business as usual only produces the usual business, the Saudi protest at least invites the question to be considered with marginally greater urgency.
Saudi Arabia is not an ideal messenger, given that on human rights it is rarely on the side of the angels and, in the matter of Syria, might at best only be on the side of the lesser devils. Nevertheless, their refusal on go along with what they regard as a shameful performance on Syria is certainly more effective than simply going along to get along.
When Stephen Harper announced that he would not attend the Commonwealth summit in Colombo next month in protest of Sri Lankan human rights abuses, the customary criticism was the standard diplomatic one: Better to go and have your voice heard than stay home and not be heard. The Saudis are hearing the same criticism now. But in fact Harper is more noticed as one who refuses to go rather than as one of the dozens who will. Saudi Arabia has done the same.
Now that the Saudis have declined their seat, another country will take it, and the status quo will slouch along. Perhaps it may have been better to accept the seat and boycott the meetings, an empty chair being able to speak more eloquently than yet another speech.
original article found here
0 comments:
Post a Comment