United Nations in an era of growing nationalism – 2

united-nations-in-an-era-of-growing-nationalism-2
United Nations

By Jide Osuntokun

 

One of the noticeable phenomena in contemporary times is the rise of nationalism not only in Russia with its policy of protecting “Russia abroad” but also in the United States under the former president of the USA, Donald J. Trump and his policy of “America first”.  This was a policy of isolationism and building fortress America in which the former president wanted to so arm America that any war it engages in will be a walkover. As part of his scheme, he wanted to buy Greenland from Denmark a deal whose suggestion at all was deemed rather odd, old fashioned kind of territorial bargaining and unusual in contemporary times.

President Trump was ready to befriend Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban of Hungary, Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Kim Jong un of North Korea, Xi Jinping of China at least initially before they fell out and the Arab monarchical dictators and any other “strong leader” irrespective of his democratic credentials as long as such people were friendly to the USA. “America first” policy was based on brutal diplomatic language of abuse and bullying of opponents something unseen in diplomacy since the Europe of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini. In this scenario, Trump said he was not bound to defend any foreign country’s democratic rights as long as America’s interests were not involved.  He was not even interested in NATO whose members he claimed had cheated the US by under-contributing to its budget and as for the European Union, he did not see the usefulness of the Union and supported Britain’s exit from it.

He was not interested in the UN and any of its specialized agencies.  He threatened to cut the US contributions to the budget of the UN and actually withdrew from UNESCO and the WHO at a critical time of the coronavirus pandemic on the grounds that the World Health Organization did not back his theory that the coronavirus pandemic was unleashed on the world by China. Trump was ready to dismantle the peace architecture of the world set 1945. It did not matter to him whether it was NATO or the UN and its specialized agencies such as UNESCO, WTO, UNICEF, World Bank, The World Court and the United Nations convention on climate change (UNFCC) and its mitigation, adaptation and finance signed in 2016.

Trump claimed there was no climate emergency and that the whole thing was cyclical and that the science of it was not universally accepted. He said the economic demands on America to save the environment were so onerous as to constitute an economic burden on America. Even though all the major countries stayed in the Paris Accord and continued to implement policies agreed upon by the world to mitigate climate abuse, the accord was almost dealt a death blow by the United States’ withdrawal. Staying in the Paris Agreement by America was critical; America being one of the countries whose industrial and anthropogenic emissions and other forms of pollution brought the whole world to the present climate emergency. Happily, the Joe Biden administration has returned America to the Paris protocol on climate change.

China, the other major power virtually operating outside the “talking shop” of the UN has staked out its dominance in the South China Sea by building fortified artificial Islands which it has militarized as forward positions for the Chinese military in its defence of what it considers its national interest. China has become more aggressive in Hong Kong, flying the flag of nationalism of “one country one people “in spite of its former commitment to maintain “one country two systems” which involves the protection of Hong Kong’s democratic and capitalist system of government, which it covenanted with Britain to protect.  China has made it clear that Taiwan is part of China and would not welcome United States’ interference. The US is challenging China in the South China sea under the guise of protecting International law of freedom of navigation. The US has recently cobbled together a so-called alliance of four democratic states namely India, Japan, Australia and South Korea as a counterpoise to China in South Asia and South East Asia. It is also helping its former enemy, Vietnam and the Philippines to strengthen their claims in the South China sea. There is no doubt that this is the beginning of fierce competition for global economic supremacy between the United States and China that is bound to increase as China tries to catch up with the US as the premier economic power in the world. This is what is at the root of the increasing diplomatic spat between China and the United Sates. While all this challenge and counter moves are going on, the UN can only watch from a distance and hope that the situation does not get out of hands.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the UN is not in a position to secure world peace.

This is why the UN in the past embraced the strategy of regionalism and world order. The UN actively supports regional organizations as building blocks for global peace. Representatives of such organizations as the EU, The AU, OAS and others have observer status in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). This is actually a wise step as could be seen in the ECOMOG operations in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the late 1980s and 1990s with UN support only in the latter part of that operation whose burden was largely borne by ECOWAS, a regional organization. The UN nevertheless  is still able to arbitrate between warring countries in Africa, in South America, the Middle East, East Timor and to help build peace where there is none in collapsed or collapsing  states like Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Libya, Somalia, Central African Republic and to mediate between Morocco and Algeria over their rival claims on Former Spanish Sahara (Rio de Oro) and to help build in the 1990s peace in former Yugoslavian successor states some of which were in military confrontation with others.

In spite of its limitations, some people even think the UN can help unlock the knot of rival nationalisms within existing member states. This unrealistic expectation is prevalent in Africa and in a place like Nigeria where some groups would like to secede from the present country because of the fear of ethnic chauvinism and discrimination based on language and religion. This is not an area in which the UN would like to be involved but of course, if law and order were to break down in any member country it will be the duty of the UN to help the suffering people in such situations such as is currently the case in Tigray in Ethiopia. Even when it cannot shape the course of events, the voice of its current Secretary-General, Antonio  Guterres carries moral weight.

The relevance of the UN during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic has amplified the usefulness of the international organization. If the WHO had not existed, substantial members of humanity in Africa, Asia and Latin America, but particularly in Africa would not have had access to Covid- 19 vaccines because of their poverty. It is the WHO, appealing to the conscience of the rich world, that has been able to mobilize resources for supply of vaccines to the poor part of humanity. But for this, Africa would have been forgotten in an era of vaccines nationalism when most countries in the world are naturally taking care of their own citizens first before dawning on them that in a global pandemic, no one is safe until everyone is safe. Apart from the WHO, the financial institutions of the UN, the so-called Breton Woods institutions such as the World Bank and its regional affiliates, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), are helping many poor countries.

The future of the UN will lie in its ability to coordinate global efforts to save the environment because it is the only body that can coax the various countries driven by their national interests to see the world as a common patrimony of mankind. Even though the job of economic equity and fairness cannot be guaranteed by the UN or through fair trade as is being dreamt of by the WTO supporters mostly in the Third world, it is also clear that a world where the yawning gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen will not be secure for either those who are at an advantage or the disadvantaged. In the future, the futility of armed peace, balance of terror or Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which we have become used to may compel us to commit ourselves to a policy of general disarmament that was mooted after the Second World War.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to our Newsletter

* indicates required

Intuit Mailchimp