|
|
 |
A New World Order
// UN Security Council Copes with Upstarts
The significance of the event that recently occurred in the UN Security Council far outweighs that of the dilemma that was being discussed there, namely, whether or not there will be sanctions against Tehran, and if there will be sanctions, then what kind. The breakdown of the voting process on the new Iran resolution testifies – if not to serious changes – at least to new trends in the holy of holies of the contemporary world order: the UN Security Council.
The quintet of permanent members of the Security Council are often called the "world politburo," and not without reason. Whatever the "big five" decides, that's what will happen, just like under the politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. No matter how much the participants in the UN General Assembly fling themselves around or the temporary members of the Security Council attempt to strut their stuff, the best that they can hope for is that their opinions will be taken into consideration. The politburo – that is, the big five – decides everything, and behind closed doors.
But now this venerable system has suffered a breakdown. And what a breakdown! All at once three temporary members of the Security Council introduced amendments to a resolution that was prepared and agreed upon by the politburo itself. And not just cosmetic improvements, but changes that leave no stone unturned in the foundation of the project. The big five spent a lot of time and energy on finding an agreement amongst themselves on that resolution. And just when it seemed that the formal adoption of the resolution was just a technicality, the temporary members staged a coup and dared to stand up to the politburo.
This begs the question: what happened in the depths of the Security Council? What prompted South Africa, Qatar, and Indonesia to flout the combined will of the big five and Germany? After all, it is hard to believe that these three countries are more concerned than anyone else about the fate of Iran.
Several curious moments stand out in the reaction to the breakdown of the voting on the Iranian resolution. First is the disillusionment and even irritation from the British, who initiated the resolution, and the Americans, who actively supported it. Second is the absolute self-confidence of the leaders of the uprising, the South Africans. The third is the Olympian calm of the Chinese and Russian UN ambassadors – the Russian representatives even claimed to see some good in the proposed amendments.
This brings to mind a phrase uttered by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the State Duma on the eve of the discussion in the Security Council: that Russia "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran." In addition, there are the recent hints from the Chinese representatives to the Security Council that the new resolution on Iran can expect a much longer road than its authors expected.
It would seem that Russia and China know something about the "revolt" brewing among the temporary members, or that they at least guessed that something was up. Or maybe they even helped South Africa, Indonesia, and Qatar formulate their amendments.
All of this is speculation, of course. But the fact remains that there is a new reality in the UN Security Council, where agreement between the big five permanent members no longer guarantees a trouble-free path for any document.
Gennady Sysoyev
All the Article in Russian as of Mar. 23, 2007
|
|
|
