International Intrigues and Israelo-Hamas War: The Case of the 79th UNGA
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The 79th UNGA, like the ones before it, is quite interesting organisationally and in terms of challenges, and intrigues. Organisationally, it involves a four-layered procedure. First, it always requires the election of the President of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) or simply General Assembly (GA). The election of the President of the UNGA 79 session took place on 6 June 2024 at 3 pm in compliance with Rule 30 of the Rules of Procedure. Under normal circumstance, election is always based on regional rotation and it is the turn of the African region in 2024, hence the election of Ambassador Philemon Yang of Cameroon.
In its resolution 71/323, entitled “Revitalisation of the Work of the General Assembly,” the Assembly decided to call upon nominated candidates interested in the position of the President of the UNGA to present their vision statement and to also carry out an informal interactive dialogue with all Member States in the spirit of contributing to the transparency and inclusivity of the process. More important, the President of the 78th Session of the GA, H.E. Mr. Dennis Francis, convened the informal interactive dialogue as mandated in Resolution 71/323 on 8 May 2024. And perhaps most significantly, civil society representatives and private individuals were invited to submit their questions to the candidate of the 79th session to be answered at the interactive dialogue. Questions were collected via pre-recorded videos.
Second, the election of the UNGA president was followed by the opening session, which began on 10 September 2024 at the UN Headquarters in New York. The third level was the holding of a “Summit of the Future,” held from 22nd September, while the fourth and the crescendo of all activities was the high-level general debate which started on 24 September and scheduled to last until tomorrow, 30 September 2024. Every general debate is themed. The UNGA 79 has “Leaving no one behind: Acting together for the advancement of peace, sustainable development, and human dignity for present and future generation,” as the theme for 2024. In this regard, what is the situational reality of not leaving anyone behind and advancing peace and sustainable development in international relations?
79th UNGA and Intrigues
No one is running fast, not to talk of waiting for anyone behind. No one appears to be truly committed to the advancement of peace in international relations. What is true is that everyone is more preoccupied with self-survival through engagement in politics of intrigues. Intrigue fascinates or arouses an interest and curiosity. It means engaging in a secret and illegal act that is detrimental to the interest of another person. In this regard, any engagement that is illegal and secretly made cannot be different from what the French people call magouille or what the Yoruba people call wùrùwúrú or jìbìtì, both meaning fraud, dishonesty or any act of indecency. While the activities of the United Nations (UN) are grosso modo predicated on the triangle of international peace, international security, and international human rights, the war between Israel and Palestinians, in particular, Israelo-Hamas and Israelo-Hezbollah, is driven by international intrigues and magouilles. The UNGA 79 clearly reflects this observation.
It is a truism that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is not only the decision-making, but also the representative, body of the UN. It comprises 193 Member States and operates on the basis of ‘One State One Vote.’ The UNGA general debate does not really take the format of arguing for or against, but what the Member States consider their own priorities and what the attitudinal policies to global challenges should be. More often than not, the general debate reflects power politics, north-south disagreement, and, more importantly, African problems and regional security.
Most unfortunately, however, the UN appears to be failing in its core mandate of maintaining international peace and security because of politics of intrigues and lack of commitment to international peace and security. Power rivalry and me-tooism are given priority in foreign policy and strategic calculations to the detriment of international law obligations. The western protection of Israel’s genocidal crimes, as well as western supply of weapons to Israel in the commission of the said genocide clearly suggest another world war in the making, with the Israelo-Hamas and Israelo-Hezbollah crises serving as catalysts without strengthened efforts by the international community to stop the escalation.
When the UN was established, one declared major objective was to save succeeding generations from new scourge of war. It was to protect humanity. However, the structures and sovereign rights provided for in the UN Charter necessarily run in conflict with the objective of global peace and security. While there is goodness in the establishment of the UN, the implementation of its peace support operations have little or no goodness because of three inhibiting factors: permanent membership of the UN Security Council (UNSC); exclusive right of veto; and the rule of consensus of all the Permanent Members of the UNSC before critical reforms can be carried out in the organisation.
The concept of Permanent Members creates inequality of membership. Consequently, the notion of sovereign equality is meaningless. One definiendum to qualify for permanent membership was being one of the victorious allies in World War II and being a nuclear power. In fact, the Permanent Members, five in all and often referred to as the P-5 (China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and United States) are also referred to as the Nuclear Weapons States. The P-5 do not want any new member to join and are also very hostile to the development of nuclear capability by any other State.
The intrigue in this case is that the P-5 accept the development of nuclear power for peaceful uses but not for belligerent purpose. While this position is not condemnable in itself, the truth remains that the processes required for making nuclear weapons for war are not in any way different from the processes required for peaceful purposes. And perhaps most disturbingly, some permanent members assist their allies to acquire nuclear capability status while preaching the sermons of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It should be recalled that before the Nuclear Non-proliferations Treaty (NPT) was opened for signature on July 1, 1968, France and China refused to sign it until they had perfected their nuclear programmes. China argued that the treaty was discriminatory and therefore refused to sign it while France refused to sign it but accepting to ‘behave in the future in this field exactly as the States adhering to the Treaty.’ The NPT entered into force on March 5, 1970 with 46 states-parties while in 1992, both China and France acceded to the treaty. Even though the 91 states-parties decided on May 30, 1975 to be reviewing the treaty every five years, with the second review holding on September 7, 1980 and the third review on September 25, 1985, there is no disputing the fact that there have been proliferations, especially with the collaboration of the nuclear weapons states.
Apart from the P-5 countries, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea have developed nuclear capability or have nuclear weapons. All efforts were made to prevent the Democratic People’s Republic (DPRK) or North Korea from having nuclear weapons but North Korea not only withdrew from the NPT in 2003 in order to develop its own nuclear weapons, but also argued that ‘its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to carry them are necessarily to counter threats from the United States and its allies.’ The period from 1985 when North Korea signed the NPT and 2003 when it withdrew from it, was the time of full determination and efforts to be nuclear self-reliant.
Today the problem has been made more complex with the re-definition of Russia’s nuclear doctrine. Considering that the West, led by the United States, is providing long-range western ballistic missiles to Ukraine for possible use against Russian military sites, President Putin has interpreted such a provision to be an infringement of Russian sovereignty. As he explained it, any attack from a non-nuclear state that is supported by a nuclear-armed state cannot but mean a “joint attack” and therefore cannot but mean a direct threat to use nuclear weapons in the Russo-Ukrainian war. President Putin is therefore considering a change in the rules and preconditions of the use of its nuclear arsenal. It has therefore become necessary for him to use nuclear arms to defend Russia.
In other words, countries that are required to save humanity from nuclear arms race, from new scourge of wars, to maintain international peace and security are precisely the ones threatening the use of nuclear force. This is political intrigue per excellence. The Ukrainian leader, Volodymyr Zelensky responded that President Putin ‘no longer has anything other than nuclear blackmail to intimidate the world,’ and that the threat is nothing more than a ‘nuclear sabre-rattling” aimed at deterring its allies from providing further support. Whatever is the case, President Putin has ‘clearly set the conditions for Russia to transition to using nuclear weapons.’ The moment there is evidence of commencement of massive launch of missiles, aircraft and drones into the Russian territory, the launch of Russian nuclear weapons cannot but be expected.
On Consensus and Veto, the two constitute two sides of the same coin. Articles 108 and 109 of the UN Charter require the consensus of the P-5 acting collectively before the UN Charter can be reviewed. As stipulated, for example, in Article 108, ‘amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of the General Assembly and 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.’
Intrigues and Global Insecurity
The intrigues of some Member States, especially the more powerful States, unnecessarily fuel the recidivist global insecurity and this is mainly because of the misuse of the right of veto power that cannot be easily done away with. Article 109, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the UN Charter is about the convening of a General Conference for the purposes of possibly reviewing the UN Charter. For both convening the conference, as well as for decisions-taking, the validity of whatever action or outcome is subject to the inclusion of the votes of the Five Permanent Members of the UNSC within the required two-thirds votes of the Member States of the UN. By implication, the review of the UN Charter is largely dependent on the whims and caprices of every P-5 member.
And true enough, in the quest for international peace and security, it has not always been easy to evolve the consensus of the P-5. This is one major reason for lack of peace and security, and yet the cardinal rationale for establishing the UN is to prevent future wars.
But why is it that war can no longer be prevented and why the UN has not been able to keep the peace? Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi has offered one possible reason. At the 201st edition of Professor Akinyemi’s thruMyeyes social media platform on current international affairs (vide Syncterface.zoom.us/j/81728930611 or Meeting ID 817 2893 0611, PWD 820149), he explained that the UN was never designed to perform miracles but provides some signposts to enable the organisation to perform.
One of the signposts is the provision of veto power at the level of the UNSC. The provision of veto power is to ensure that the UN would not bother to tackle problems it does not have capacity to solve. Put differently, the provision of veto power was specifically meant for the super powers to save face in the event of disagreements at the UNSC, and by so doing, preventing disputes that can generate or threaten international peace and security. As he further posited, the various conflicts everyone is talking about at the UN are basically resultants from the superpower-induced failure to act or laisser faire. In essence, the UN was not set up to resolve disputes between the big powers. Consequently, people should blame the big powers and not the UN
From the foregoing, the incapacitation of the UN to contain international conflicts can first be explicated by the fact that super and great powers are often equated with the UN. In fact, the UNSC is more often than not synonymous with the P-5. Nothing works without their consent. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict serves as a good illustration at this juncture. In terms of immediate etymological dynamics of Russia’s Special Military Intervention in Ukraine, Professor Akinyemi rightly argued that the disregard by the NATO for the principle of pacta sunt servanda, that is, sanctity of agreements, verbal or documentary, is a major reason for the deepening war in Ukraine.
As posited by Professor Akinyemi, an entente was reached between the US-led NATO and the former Soviet Union. The understanding was that, after glasnost meaning transparency or opening, and perestroïka (restructuring) which was a political reform movement within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) of which Mikhail Gorbachev was the General Secretary, the NATO would not engage in the movement of the NATO international borders eastward towards Russia. Most unfortunately, however, the NATO has reneged on this understanding by particularly sponsoring Ukraine’s membership of the NATO.
Explained differently, Mikhail Gorbachev introduced a first policy of perestroika in 1986, requiring a complete restructuring of the Russian political and economic systems, and then a second policy of glasnosts, also requiring openness and transparency in the conduct and management of Soviet affairs, as well as in government institutions and activities. Glasnost involved increasing individual freedom of expression in the socio-political domain. More important, a complete restructuring necessarily involved a jot of democratisation. After democratisation, openness in the management of government activities necessarily facilitated the access of the USSR to the world, meaning more open engagements with the non-communist Member States of the international community. The US and its allies appear to have interpreted the development as superiority of the Euro-American system over that of the then USSR.
The way the Western countries disregarded the agreement with the USSR is the same way the ongoing Israelo-Hamas and Israelo-Hezbollah conflicts are being handled with air superiority and lackadaisical attitude. The attitude encourages disregard for international humanitarian law. In fact, no country has been able to hold Israel accountable for its increasing genocidal crimes. Israel is only condemned but, by acquiescence, is encouraged to take life out of the internationally-protected persons, and thus making a nonsense of international law.
One deductive dynamic of Israel’s deliberate disregard for international law can be deduced from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech at the UNGA 79 in New York. He said that when the Israelis were being killed in the past, no one came to their aid. When the State of Israel was established in 1948, the Israelis have been able to defend themselves in the spirit of legitimate self- defence. No good observer can be against Israel’s legitimate self-defence if the act of self-defence is consistent with the ethics provided for under international law.
Secondly, there is the issue of the dual policy attitude of the great powers. They arm Israel and help Israel in its defence against Palestinian Hamas, and at the same time, they are pleading for ceasefire. Ceasefire for what? Ceasefire to allow for diplomatic initiatives. But they also know quite well that Israel is vehemently opposed to the idea of 2-State solution. Why are States consciously playing to the gallery?
One good suggestion that appears to be workable and that can serve as a catalyst in permanently resolving the problematic is the suggested approach of Australia’s Foreign Minister, Penny Wong. She noted on Friday 27 September 2024 that her country shared the frustrations of most countries regarding the lack of progress to recognise a Palestinian State. As told by the Australian Foreign Minister, ‘the international community – including the Security Council – must work together to pave a path to lasting peace. Australia wants to engage on new ways to build momentum including the role of the UNSC in setting a pathway for 2-States, with a clear timeline for the international declaration of Palestinian statehood.’ The implication of the suggestion of a timeline necessarily puts a time limit to the politics of dilly dallying and intrigues. A timeline for the declaration of a Palestinian statehood directly challenges the dual policy of deceit. It will also compel all the warring factions to prepare for the D-Day. In the event of Israel disagrees, the war will no longer be Israel versus Arab in definitional character but a war between the whole world and Israel and its backers.
Even though in the eyes of US president Joe Biden, the world is now an ‘inflection point, we are stronger than we think. We are stronger together than alone,’ time will tell after the declaration and recognition of the Palestinian statehood by the international community. For now, countries have different concerns. China’s main concerns are that Taiwan is inalienable part of Mainland China that the international community must not only move away from power politics, but must also ‘follow the direction of a multipolar world’ in order ‘to make global governance more just and equitable’ to borrow the words of Chinese /vice-President, Han Zheng at the 78th UNGA. France’s concerns are about the reaffirmation of its ‘commitment to strong and effective multilateralism’ and the need to support Ukraine and ending the crises in Gaza and Sudan. France has also shown preparedness to fight ‘inequality linked to climate change and fighting hate speech and disinformation. More significantly, France supports reforming the international system’s governance in line with the Summit of the Future. In essence, as good as these concerns may be, to what extent can UNGA 79 help to stop political intrigues in the quest for global peace and security? Contemporary international politics of maintaining global peace and security is by condemning belligerency and genocide while also acquiescing to its commission, and addressing the effects rather than the originating definienda. UNGA Resolution 181, which was adopted 77 years ago, provided for a plan for 2-States side by side, (Arab and Israel). Why has it been difficult for the UN to get it implemented? When the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip were occupied by Israel following the 6-day war in 1967, why has the UN unable to compel Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories bearing in mind that the territories are generally acknowledged to be Palestinian? Benjamin Netanyahu noted in January 2024 that Israel would ‘not compromise on full Israeli security control of all territory west of the Jordan River,’ while Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister, also said in June 2024 that the full Israeli security control was his life’s mission to ‘thwart the establishment of a Palestinian State.’ More disturbingly, European countries consciously arm Israel to kill while preaching the gospels of peace. These are challenges before UNGA 79. Having partisan interests and still seeking to mediate the conflicts is most unfortunate.
