Fighting Old Battles All Over Again

Do you get the feeling that the world is in retreat from all those victories which could be claimed since the last world war? Many of these victories were battles that we never felt we might have to revisit - yet here we are again as we see a diminution in the rule of international law, withdrawal from globalisation and resumption of narrow nationalism, world cooperation consensus on climate change and measures to save our planet, the prospect of a resumption of nuclear testing after years of restraint and aggressive trade restrictions, emasculation of the UN, rise of genocide without sanction, – all which, we know, will endanger world peace and prosperity and human cohesion. It is a far cry from the ideal of the Universal Peace Federation which is to see the realisation of one human family under God and a peace highway around the world!

Those of us who were activists in the 1970s saw great advances, not least the creation of the International Criminal Court at the end of that decade. The World Federalist Movement/Institute for Global Policy played a key role in this achievement by forming a world-wide coalition of support among civil society organisations and international lawyers have been kind enough to state that without that involvement we would not now have an ICC.

Trying to recreate a climate of internationalism and interdependence based on a common agreed rule of law with a universally accepted judicial interpretation to which all states are bound together with observance of human rights and the dignity of each individual coupled with enforceability against both states and individuals may seem a tall order in these troubled times. Sometimes, as we debate these issues in our own organisations, it can feel lonely. But why? We are not alone! There is no exact number for the total number of peace NGOs globally, but estimates suggest there could be millions, as there are an estimated 10 million non-governmental organizations (NGOs) worldwide in total. Some organizations are dedicated specifically to peacebuilding, while others have peace as a component of their broader work. Many share our goals and, when we know of them, we invite them to become member organisations of WFM. What irresistible strength there would be if we all combined and exerted pressure of that collective will of civil society. The creation of the ICC would seem tame in comparison by what could be achieved. One of the first lessons of politics is to know who your friends are and to rally them in support.

While it is right that we should pursue our goals and specific projects we should never forget that one way to succeed is to harness the support those who are seeking the same ends and present a solid front. Just as Stalin, who was wary of the Vatican due to its international influence and its opposition to communism, asked dismissively "The Pope? How many divisions does he command?" so we must recognise that those who hold the reins of power and the capacity to make meaningful change will be more attentive if they see a combined public movement (WFM is not a “Movement” for nothing!). Being right is not enough – we must also be persuasive.

One of those victories that needs to be revisited arises from the current threat of President Trump to resume nuclear testing which, no doubt, would then stimulate other states to follow suit. The U.S. last tested a nuclear bomb in 1992. Russia's last test was in 1990. China stopped in 1996. This is against a background of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is considered the cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime and is based on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The treaty includes commitments to pursue negotiations in good faith on nuclear disarmament and the states parties meet every five years to review it and it was extended indefinitely in May 1995. Despite 191 states having joined the treaty some nuclear-armed states like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have not joined. We should not forget that the only country ever to relinquish its nuclear arsenal voluntarily was Ukraine in 1994 in return for security guarantees (under the Budapest Memorandum) – which may well be a source of regret with what has happened! 

A resumption of testing by USA would lead inevitably to it by other states with increased peril of accident and miscalculation – a step closer to nuclear war.

Yet, sadly, the increased potential for use of nuclear weapons is already with us not just in the heated threats and exchanges between Russia and USA but also in the capacity for their deployment. A report by Reuters published on 21 April 2022 sets out the devolution of decision making on the use of Russian tactical nuclear weapons: a small briefcase, known as the Cheget, is kept close to the President at all times, linking him to the command and control network of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces; the Cheget does not contain a nuclear launch button but rather transmits launch orders to the central military command – the General Staff which has access to the launch codes and has two methods of launching nuclear warheads, either to send authorisation codes to individual weapons commanders, who then execute the launch procedures, or a back-up system, known as Perimetr, which allows the General Staff to initiate the launch of land-based missiles directly, bypassing all the immediate command posts.

It is often stated that generals fight a new war on the basis of the last conflict yet technology is now challenging this concept and questioning the utility of established weapons such as tanks, manned personnel carriers and artillery. Cheap drones, automated vehicles steered by robots and high technology such as cyber attacks will increasingly dominate the field of battle.

Finally, can we afford to try to modernise and make fit for purpose our international institutions in the current geo-political climate? A failure to do so risks making them seem even more irrelevant to current leaders as well as to a new generation that expects effective action. The danger in trying to do so risks opening the floodgates and ending up with solutions less favourable than what we have. The UN and its institutions were forged in the febrile atmosphere of the end of the Second World War, with many participants having fought in both world wars, and the advent of the Cold War. Although many of the founding principles remain as valid today as they were then there is no doubt that institutionally these institutions are no longer fit for purpose. 50 states signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945 with Poland signing later that year, bringing the total of founding members to 51; most of Africa was still under colonial rule and the Permanent Five members of the Security Council (UNSC) represented the victors of the Second World War (including nationalist China now Taiwan). The world has moved on and the P5 no longer represent the five most powerful nations, either economically or militarily, and are certainly not geographically representative. There are currently 193 member states in the United Nations. In addition to these full member states there are two non-member observer states: the Holy See and Palestine.

The answer to the question of whether we seek a review of the Charter (including tackling the different issue of the membership of the UN Security Council and use or threatened use of the veto by the P5) has to lie with the mood of the General Assembly (UNGA) of states and global public opinion. The UNSC has come under increasing criticism from member states and on 26 April 2022 a landmark resolution was passed without a vote at the UNGA on the use of the veto: it requires the Assembly president to convene a formal debate within 10 working days of a veto. The resolution aims to provide a mechanism for accountability and public scrutiny of the veto power, as the Security Council can be paralyzed by its use. Interestingly, it was tabled by Lichtenstein and co-sponsored by 83 Member States, including three permanent Council members, namely France, United Kingdom and the United States. During the debate Mexico’s representative saw the resolution as an important step forward in strengthening United Nations accountability; Mexico, as a founding member of the United Nations, opposed the veto at the 1945 San Francisco Conference and its decision to accept a veto was based on the principle of responsible use of that power.

Another aspect of the current political environment is the more organised and effective voice of civil society and those NGOs that want to see change. There are not only many more civil society organisations than in 1945 but they are more vocal and better organised. Modern media, especially social media, did not then exist but now mean that opinions can be shared and people influenced on such matters more than ever previously: there may be more conflicting views and fake news but the global public has found a voice. Political parties are now wary of alienating the public on issues such as climate change as these are matters that have universal appeal. Likewise, the desire for peace and a better world order is now gaining more ground. It was President Eisenhower in those former days who said “I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.” For all these reasons, from a position of being fearful of what vested interests in the super-powers might do with a review I have been persuaded that there is now enough momentum to make it a viable option which could deal with some of the existing anomalies.

That mechanism for change, of course, already exists in Art.109. Recognising that the world was changing the UN founding nations realised that for it to continue to be relevant it had to have a capacity for change. Perhaps they were influenced by Burke’s dictum that "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation". Consequently, Art.109 required that there could be a review conference to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council. True that there was a high bar to acceptance of any change which required that any alteration of the Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference “shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”

Most importantly, Art.109 specifies that “ If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.”  Consequently, in 1955 the UN General Assembly established a committee to meet annually and report on the possibility of holding this review conference, as required if such a conference had not been held before the tenth annual session. This committee continued to operate until 1967 but the general review conference has never been held. Calls for reforming the Security Council go back for over thirty years, when in 1993 the UN General Assembly (UNGA) created an Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council. The saga continues but inaction is having the effect of stultifying the UN system – and it is the only one we have! There now needs to be a far greater collective will among both states and civil society organisations to get moving before it is too late.

Keith Best TD, MA is a former Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) for Anglesey/Ynys Môn and served as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Wales. Major in airborne and commando (artillery) forces, practising barrister, liveryman (Loriner), and Freeman of the City of London, Keith was named one of the 100 most influential people in public services in the UK by Society Guardian. Keith has made significant contributions to international refugee and human rights initiatives, including serving as Vice Chair of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles and as a member of the Foreign Secretary’s Advisory Panel on Torture Prevention. He is the Chair & CEO of the Wyndham Place Charlemagne Trust, Chair of the Universal Peace Federation (UK), patron of TEAM Global, and a trustee of several national and international organisations. 

The views and opinions expressed in our International Insights are strictly those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or positions of TEAM Global or its affiliates.