NOVANEWS |
 |
|
Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird (L) shakes hands with Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud before a meeting of the Group of Friends of the Syrian People at UN headquarters in New York, Sept. 26, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Carlo Allegri)
|
|
By: Clovis Maksoud
|
During the last few days much has been written in the Arab press about Saudi Arabia’s turning down the UN Security Council seat to which it had been elected.
At the outset, I am not going to render a judgment on the Saudi decision, but I seek to give a short background on the subject of Arab representation on the UN Security Council.
There was a time when Arab states would compete to have the Arab group support the candidacy of a member state of the Arab League. At that time, I happened to be representing the Arab League at the UN, and therefore to ensure a continuous representation of an Arab representative at the Security Council, I proposed to the Arab group a formula which was accepted — namely, a rotation among Arab states, one from the Arab States from Africa for two years, and the other from Asian Arab states for the next two years.
This formula ensured a continued Arab presence among the nonpermanent members of the Security Council. The assessment of the Arab group at that time — and I think it remains —was that Arab membership on the Security Council, albeit on a nonpermanent status, is an essential priority to defend Arab interest and causes, especially Palestinian rights and other issues of major concern for the Arab League and the Arab world. To the Arab group at the UN, the advantages were self-evident.
It is true, as the Saudis state, that on most issues pertaining to the Palestinian question, the United States frequently uses its veto rights by obstructing many resolutions supported overwhelmingly both in the General Assembly and the Security Council.
The US veto on this particular central issue caused resentment, but never warranted the need to withdraw from having an Arab state on the Security Council. While the US veto on Palestinian issues has been an ongoing cause for resentment, and justifiably so, among the Arab people, highlighting this resentment and rebutting Israeli transgressions in the Security Council was and remains necessary and required.
In this respect, Saudi withdrawal of its membership can be understandable, although remaining a member would enable it to highlight the double standards of the veto, whether on the Palestinian issue or a Russian veto on the Syrian question. Perhaps, the surprise announcement by Saudi Arabia brings to the forefront a necessary dialogue — maybe debate — about the uses and abuses of the veto by the permanent members on various issues. Some of these issues require collective action by the Security Council to enforce resolutions to ensure peace and security, not only in the region, but on a global scale.
On an emotional, and perhaps rational, level, the Saudi decision resonates with a residual anger at Israelis’ ongoing violation of Palestinian national rights and its defiance of all Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Still, I really hope that Saudi Arabia will return to being a member as a strong advocate and voice for Arab national rights and the interests of the developing world.
The well-known structural flaws of the UN and, at times, the dysfunction of the Security Council, besides the frequent abuses of the veto, must be addressed to bring about urgent, necessary and long-awaited reforms to cope with the emerging global and complex issues and conflicts which humankind is experiencing.
To enhance the credibility and the effectiveness of this unique and necessary international organization, this abrupt withdrawal by the Saudis will hopefully be instantly reassessed in order that the Arab voice remains an effective contributor to international peace, human development and justice.
At the outset, I am not going to render a judgment on the Saudi decision, but I seek to give a short background on the subject of Arab representation on the UN Security Council.
There was a time when Arab states would compete to have the Arab group support the candidacy of a member state of the Arab League. At that time, I happened to be representing the Arab League at the UN, and therefore to ensure a continuous representation of an Arab representative at the Security Council, I proposed to the Arab group a formula which was accepted — namely, a rotation among Arab states, one from the Arab States from Africa for two years, and the other from Asian Arab states for the next two years.
This formula ensured a continued Arab presence among the nonpermanent members of the Security Council. The assessment of the Arab group at that time — and I think it remains —was that Arab membership on the Security Council, albeit on a nonpermanent status, is an essential priority to defend Arab interest and causes, especially Palestinian rights and other issues of major concern for the Arab League and the Arab world. To the Arab group at the UN, the advantages were self-evident.
It is true, as the Saudis state, that on most issues pertaining to the Palestinian question, the United States frequently uses its veto rights by obstructing many resolutions supported overwhelmingly both in the General Assembly and the Security Council.
The US veto on this particular central issue caused resentment, but never warranted the need to withdraw from having an Arab state on the Security Council. While the US veto on Palestinian issues has been an ongoing cause for resentment, and justifiably so, among the Arab people, highlighting this resentment and rebutting Israeli transgressions in the Security Council was and remains necessary and required.
In this respect, Saudi withdrawal of its membership can be understandable, although remaining a member would enable it to highlight the double standards of the veto, whether on the Palestinian issue or a Russian veto on the Syrian question. Perhaps, the surprise announcement by Saudi Arabia brings to the forefront a necessary dialogue — maybe debate — about the uses and abuses of the veto by the permanent members on various issues. Some of these issues require collective action by the Security Council to enforce resolutions to ensure peace and security, not only in the region, but on a global scale.
On an emotional, and perhaps rational, level, the Saudi decision resonates with a residual anger at Israelis’ ongoing violation of Palestinian national rights and its defiance of all Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. Still, I really hope that Saudi Arabia will return to being a member as a strong advocate and voice for Arab national rights and the interests of the developing world.
The well-known structural flaws of the UN and, at times, the dysfunction of the Security Council, besides the frequent abuses of the veto, must be addressed to bring about urgent, necessary and long-awaited reforms to cope with the emerging global and complex issues and conflicts which humankind is experiencing.
To enhance the credibility and the effectiveness of this unique and necessary international organization, this abrupt withdrawal by the Saudis will hopefully be instantly reassessed in order that the Arab voice remains an effective contributor to international peace, human development and justice.