A politically just reprisal to Putin’s assault on Ukraine

 

How a war ends is unpredictable, but evidently the era in which the powerful attacker won over the smaller or failing nations is over. In the present time where there are international agreements or, in their absence, international norms regarding rights and obligations of states, the attacked nation musters national courage and international support to defend itself based on those agreements and norms. In other words, the attacker’s action is now illegitimate, and the attacked’s defense garners international backing. This is the result of having advanced in the journey towards the civilizational pinnacle. Hence, in the ongoing Russian invasion, Ukrainian defense has the better chance of winning. The emphasis of success here is in the concept of defense. So far as Ukraine fights for defending its land and recovering what has been invaded, she will have the will to fight and will have the support of members of the international community. Ukraine’s unexpected will to resist and the material and/or rhetorical support by many in the international community is a testament to this forecast.

 Nevertheless, there are several states that consider that Putin’s attack on Ukraine was brought on by the Western block’s extension of its economic supremacy to the unwelcome strategic and political fields (NATO and EU). They withhold their support to Ukraine on that premise. Whereas the West’s position is that its support and assistance to Ukraine is not for supremacy, but for “the defense of the rule of law”. Yet, many states refrain from lending their support. This contrariness is understandable for those who are politically or economically beholden to Russia. The appreciation of the reasons why the West’s position is not found believable by the rest may help the West in the way it will handle the future of this war.

 The West’s position expressed as “the defense of the rule of law” rings hollow for at least two reasons. It is too imprecise as to which rule of law is meant by it. And it leaves a condescending echo on the less powerful countries in question because of their historical sensitivities towards the occasional discrepancies between the West’s rhetoric and action. “Defense of rule of law” raises questions: Is the referenced law a Western law, and who authorized the West to enforce the law?

It is commonplace that leaders need knowledge, power, and authority to lead. Followers recognize leadership because they are less powerful, not necessarily less knowledgeable; they do not want to follow by force or deceit, but with dignity, as part of the process, not as a thrall. Therefore, the US would be more persuasive in relations if she were to keep the discourse within international terms and avoid giving the appearance of national interests and bullying. There is no need to reaffirm national interests. Negotiators of all sides in foreign relations keep that factor in mind even if it is not expressed.  

It is important to bear in mind in all dealings with countries that emerged after WWII not to have national or Western political and/or strategic motives, or if there are such motives to be truthful about them. This is necessitated by the fact that several European countries have bad colonial reputations, and the US has lost her benevolent-power accolade she got right after WWII as a result of her numerous but some unnecessary and failed, interventions since. Not only US diplomacy also US politicians and media have to stop: 1- the constant boasting of greatness, exceptionalism, supremacy, and power, in order to avoid being blamed with bullying, righteousness and condescension when the time comes for need for international support; 2- the analyzing and judging international matters and discourse against the US criteria, culture, and interests, in order to avoid the perception or misinterpretation for an ideological or political motive.

Therefore, it would help if West would make it clear that assistance to Ukraine is for “the defense of internationally agreed peace and sovereignty principles”*; not for the establishment of a certain regime in Ukraine, nor is it for strategic advantage. The reason for following the West would then be clear to all concerned. The mistaken perception about Western hidden agenda would be overcome. More importantly, such rhetoric will make those states inclusive in the process, thus rendering legitimacy to their decision to participate. Let us not forget that all countries, big or small, right or left, want “peace and sovereignty”.

 As to ending the ongoing war, the parameters of a feasible, realistic end are as follows: 1- A decisive military defeat by, a change of heart or an internal uprising in Russia which will ensue withdrawal from the territory it invaded is unrealistic. A complete withdrawal of Russia from Ukraine to the borders that it agreed to in 1994 Budapest Memorandum would mean its acceptance of a complete defeat by -what turned out to be- the paper tiger; although this (in addition to war reparations for the vast devastation it caused) would be the most just resolution of the assault perpetrated by Russia. It is equally unrealistic to expect a complete military victory by Ukraine, i.e. for her to reoccupy and hold the entire invaded territory within a short period without losing much more life and treasure.

2-     The only alternative seems to be a negotiated compromise in which Russia will gain less territory than what it set out to gain but at a cost of paying hefty reparations and war crime sentences, and Ukraine will lose less territory than it would have otherwise, at a gain of even better value of NATO and EU membership (which Russia used as an excuse for its folly in the first place).

3-     Such negotiation will be possible only if and when Ukraine firmly reoccupies the entire land corridor to Crimea which Russia allegedly annexed, and it stops short of reoccupying Crimea. It cannot expect to reoccupy Crimea as Putin would do anything to hold on to it, despite the fact that the international law is on the side of Ukraine.

4-     A negotiated settlement regarding Crimea, preferably, may only refer to that land as the 2014 fait accompli (or some other ambiguous statement) without expressly assigning any status to Crimea (an ambiguity carries a hope that a future opportunity may open a possible way out from the mistake the West made by not having acted decisively in 2014). A provision for the repatriation of Crimean Tatars and the return of previous Ukrainian habitants on grounds of human rights and dignity would be very important.

5-     A formally declared request and support for negotiation of as many as possible members of the international community (prominently with the inclusion of China, which is very likely) will be sine qua non of the success of such a settlement, The call for peace negotiation should not appear as a Western block call, but an international call putting Russia in isolation. Such request and support may be achieved through a UNGA resolution tasking the Security Council with it.

           

*  Like the UN Charter of 1945, the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 recognizing the independence of Ukraine in exchange of desisting her nuclear weapons, 1997 Cooperation and Security Agreement Between NATO and Russia, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of 1990 from which Russia withdrew after 2014.                                                                                      

 June 9, 2023

 

The Missing Element for the Success of the UN Sustainable Development Program

 

The objective of this article is to review the scholarly studies published on the progress of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), for the purpose of determining whether the presence of a peaceful environment necessary for development was considered in the implementation and assessment of implementation at national levels. In doing so, the political principle of “prosperity may be achieved only with peace”[1] is taken as the point of reference, the benchmark.

 

Historical background-Foundational documents

The Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm on 16 June 1972 is viewed generally as the precursor of SDGs. The Conference’s resolution was dedicated to the relation between the environment and development while adding “Principle 26: Man, and his environment must be spared the effects of nuclear weapons and all other means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in the relevant international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of such weapons.”[2] While the document calls specifically for nuclear disarmament for the desired human environment, presumably for peace, it does not directly relate peace to development, or prosperity.

 

Undeniably the genesis of the SDG, the most comprehensive socio/economic, thus potentially the most globally impactful, and accordingly the most ambitious and challenging United Nations (UN) project is the Brundtland Report of 1987 (ambitiously titled Our Common Future) of the World Commission on Environment and Development commissioned by the UN. The UN was motivated by the alarm bells rang by the scientific community about the harm caused to the environment by human activities with adverse climatic and economic consequences. The Report did appropriately and strictly focus on relations between human economic activities and the environment. “It was an urgent call by the General Assembly of the United Nations: to propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development by the year 2000 and beyond;”[3] Nevertheless, the Chairperson PM G.H. Brundtland also noted in the presentation of the report, “After Brandt's Programme for Survival and Common Crisis, and after Palme's Common Security, would come Common Future. This was my message when Vice Chairman Mansour Khalid and I started work on the ambitious task set up by the United Nations. This report, as presented to the UN General Assembly in 1987, is the result of that process.”[4] Thus, Brundtland report established a relation between the environmental and economic development and the “Common Security” in addition to the “Common Crisis”. It drew attention to the need “for international economic system of co-operation.” It can be deduced from this statement that international economic co-operation cannot take place without the presence of “security”, presumably international peace. However, we reach that conclusion by inference, in the absence of direct statements like indispensability of peace for “environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development”.

 

Rio Conference on Environment and Development on 14 June 1992 linked the environmental concerns with the economic development as follows: “Principle 4: In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it.”. Like its predecessor of 1972, it also added a similar caveat “Principle 25: Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.”^[5], establishing a more direct relation between development and peace, without however incorporating means of maintenance of peace in the general development objective.

 

“At the Millennium Summit in September 2000, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration (MD) as a foundation for the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015”. “I. Values and principles …. 2. We recognize that, in addition to our separate responsibilities to our individual societies, we have a collective responsibility to uphold the principles of human dignity, equality and equity at the global level. …. 4. We are determined to establish a just and lasting peace all over the world in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter. We rededicate ourselves to support all efforts to uphold the sovereign equality of all States, respect for their territorial integrity and political independence, resolution of disputes by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, the right to self-determination of peoples which remain under colonial domination and foreign occupation, .… 6. …. • Shared responsibility. Responsibility for managing worldwide economic and social development, as well as threats to international peace and security. .… II. Peace, security and disarmament …. 8. We will spare no effort to free our peoples from the scourge of war.…. 9. We resolve therefore: … • To make the United Nations more effective in maintaining peace and security by giving it the resources and tools it needs for conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, post-conflict peacebuilding and reconstruction. ….. (and) VIII. Strengthening the United Nations …. 29. We will spare no effort to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all of these priorities: the fight for development for all the peoples of the world, the fight against poverty, ignorance and disease; the fight against injustice; the fight against violence, terror and crime; and the fight against the degradation and destruction of our common home.” [6] (Emphasis added). The United Nations community made it abundantly clear with this Declaration that the fight for development cannot succeed only by fighting against environmental degradation without also fighting for peace. It also promised to be effective in conflict prevention, peaceful resolution of disputes, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding.  

 

2012 UN Rio Conference on Sustainable Development resolved in The Future We Want, “I. Our common vision 1. We, the Heads of State and Government and high-level representatives, having met at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 20 to 22 June 2012, with the full participation of civil society, renew our commitment to sustainable development and to ensuring the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations. 2. Poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. …….. 5. We reaffirm our commitment to make every effort to accelerate the achievement of the internationally agreed development goals, including the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. …… 8. We also reaffirm the importance of freedom, peace and security, ……(Emphasis added). 10. We acknowledge that democracy, good governance and the rule of law, at the national and international levels, as well as an enabling environment, are essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger. We reaffirm that, to achieve our sustainable development goals, we need institutions at all levels that are effective, transparent, accountable and democratic. 11. We reaffirm our commitment to strengthen international cooperation to address the persistent challenges related to sustainable development for all, in particular in developing countries. In this regard, we reaffirm the need to achieve economic stability, sustained economic growth, the promotion of social equity and the protection of the environment, while enhancing gender equality, women’s empowerment and equal opportunities for all, and the protection, survival and development of children to their full potential, including through education. …”[7]. This Resolution acknowledged peace being of “importance”; while however “reaffirming the need to achieve” development in matters from social equity to education, it neglects the same to achieve development in peace. In operative Sections like “B. Advancing integration, implementation and coherence:” implementations by States and assessments of their progress do not include domestic or international peace. Consequently, Section “V. Institutional framework for sustainable development:”, which establishes “a universal, intergovernmental, high-level political forum, .…[to] follow up on the implementation of sustainable development” does not charge the political forum to follow up on  the maintenance of peace at “regional, national, subnational and local levels”. Neither “B. Sustainable development goals”, nor “VI. Means of implementation” provides for the maintenance of peace.

Therefore, the 2012 Rio Conference did not pursue the promises of the 2000 MDG.

 

The Executive Summary of the Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report drawn in 2014 noted peace in a very generic form only in its opening paragraphs, “Since the creation of the United Nations, the world’s peoples have aspired to make progress on the great global issues of peace and security, freedom, development and the environment.”[8] The Prototype’s language expectedly followed on 2012 Rio Resolution, limited itself to the assessment of progress made in 17 Goals without including the effect of the prevailing domestic and/or international peace on sustainable development.

 

2015 UNSDG Resolution Preamble states, “This Agenda is a plan of action for people, planet and prosperity. It also seeks to strengthen universal peace in larger freedom. ….. of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental. ……

Prosperity

We are determined to ensure that all human beings can enjoy prosperous and fulfilling lives and that economic, social and technological progress occurs in harmony with nature.

 Peace

We are determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.”[9] (Emphasis added). The 2015 SDG Resolution does not contain any actionable provision as regards the maintenance of domestic and/or international peace. UNSDG, seems to have followed the same thought process of the 2012 Rio conclusions, by only stating the necessity of peace for development without integrating it in the Development Program with means of implementation and assessment mechanisms established for the other fields. The SDG did not dare to revive the Millenium Development Goals although it set out to be a plan of action for development.

 

The 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, The Future is Now: Science for Achieving Sustainable Development, was the first report of “assessment of assessments” prepared by an Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General. The Prologue of 2019 First Report by PM G.H. Brundtland 32 years after her original report that help launch the UNSDG program states, “Each of us, from scientists and doctors to politicians and even playwrights, needs to be prepared to take the helm in an appropriate and realistic way – from our local community to national and international levels.”^[10] The Afterword of the Report indicates how the Independent Group undertook its mandate, “the Report should incorporate the different strands of scientific knowledge to provide an integrated assessment of and guidance on the state of global sustainable development and, at the same time, strengthen the science-policy interface and put forward scientific evidence …”  It “capitaliz(ed) on critical interlinkages among the Sustainable Development Goals”, although its mandate was to be an “assessment of assessments”. Scientific assessment seems to have excluded political science. An assessment of Goal 16 fell on the wayside. We are currently looking forward to the second Report that will be released in September 2023. In the interim, numerous studies were published in scientific journals assessing the implementation of the SDG.

 

Scholarly assessments of progress

As early as in 2016, a study by Mark Elder et al. drew attention to the importance of peace by identifying the maintenance of peace as another goal. But, they settled by forcing an interpretation of Goal 16, “The word governance is not directly mentioned in the SDGs, but Goal 16 on peaceful societies is generally considered to be the SDG related to governance. …………. Still, Goal 16 is focused on peaceful societies, and peace is reasonably considered a worthy goal in itself. ……..

Therefore, this paper recommends focusing on strengthening coordination and governance capacity in the early stages of SDG implementation.”[11]

 

A 2017 study by P. Pradhan et al. rightly and importantly noted, “the SDGs provide a holistic and multidimensional view on development. …… For this, all SDGs need to act as a system of interacting cogwheels that together move the global system into the safe and just operating space.”[12] Co-operation between the implementation of several SDGs as well as in the assessment of their progress is of the utmost importance in their success. The adoption of such, as a criterion for the general assessment of progress of SDGs, must be welcome.

  

Thomas Hickman noted in his 2022 study of success factors of the Millenium Development Goals, “Globally agreed goals therefore cannot be expected to easily trickle down from intergovernmental negotiations within the United Nations to the national level and then further to regions and provinces as well as cities and municipalities. Thus, scholars and policymakers concerned with the effectiveness of globally agreed policy goals should dedicate more attention to the domestic contexts in which such global principles and norms are supposed to take effect.”[13] This observation brings to light a necessary element for the success of the SDGs, the international inter-dependence of development, which is the second pillar of the political principle, in addition to prosperity, constituting the theme of the present article.

 

Martin Koering wrote at the end of 2022, “The “social” dimension of the challenges of climate change, climate action and sustainability has often been an after-thought, but in 2023 this dimension will rise further up the sustainability agenda.”[14] If this prediction becomes true, he added, than there may be hope for political dimension about domestic and international peace will take prominence in goals, Means of Implementation, and Assessments of Progress. Here we may add, not only the social dimensions of climate change but also other social dimensions in domestic and international peace, like population growth, migration, general education policies, which affect social inequality, thus peace, must take prominence in the implementation and assessment of SDGs.

 

The study made by Frank Biermann states, “First, regarding the global governance system, we find that the political impact of the SDGs has been mostly discursive, for example, through their adoption as a reference point in international policy pronouncements and in a changed discourse within global institutions.

……………… there is no strong evidence that the SDGs have had a transformative impact on the mandates, practices or resource allocation of international organizations and institutions within the United Nations system (for example, refs. 11^,12). 

………. Studies also suggest that the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development has not lived up to expectations of becoming an effective ‘orchestrator’13 in global sustainability governance.”[15] In this study, the term “global governance” used in the related UN documents, which also appeared in a few other publications, is potentially a cause for indignation; it could be replaced by a more accurate and acceptable term “global inter-dependent endeavor”. It may also be advisable to draw attention to observations in some studies concerning the disregard of some SDGs by some countries presumably for politically motivated ideological reasons. Such practices must be condemned by the High-Level Political Forum on SDG as contempt of SDG, thus contempt of humanity’s prosperity. In this regard, the involvement of national and international NGO networks to serve as watchdogs for the implementation of SDGs would be a considerably effective instrument for assessments.

 

Conclusion

A meaningful and effective action to counter and reverse the adverse effects of human activity on the environment and climate must be global in all respects, because of the complexity of the problem. The UNSD program is therefore the appropriate way to initiate and implement the action. The UN member states’ governments are the right channels or arms to carry out this program.

As may be seen from the texts of pre-2015 UNSDG Resolution, as well as from the 2015 Resolution itself, prosperity constitutes the core or the objective of the SDGs while peace, although recognized as necessary, has only been mentioned peripherally as important or necessity for the SDG program’s implementation. SDGs are appropriately declared as ambitious and all-encompassing objectives for transforming the world to a prosperous future for all peoples of the globe. Detailed implementation and progress assessment provisions are in place.

The inseparable relation between development and peace was repeatedly recognized at the highest levels and stages of the SD program. Yet, thirty-five years since the Brundtland Report, peace and security remains an important aspiration for the SDG program. This aspiration was never incorporated or integrated with the SDGs. This omission may have been for not jeopardizing the adoption of the resolutions and commitments expressed therein because of the ever-present disagreements within the international community, and of the lack of courage of governments to tackle them.

Whether domestic or international, the absence of peace is no less the cause and consequence of poverty and inequality than any other natural, social, or political challenges. Peace and prosperity are dependent on each other, they grow or fail together. Unsurprisingly, many studies published in scientific journals indicate that SDGs cannot succeed in countries where there is internal strife. Peace is fundamental, a sine qua non, for prosperity, even more than the synergic relationship between all the SDGs. None of the SDGs can succeed without domestic and international peace.

Nationwide action, in particular fundamental and comprehensive ones like economic development, require the good majority of public’s understanding and support for it to succeed. For this purpose, the SDGs include public education of the program. SDG is ultimately a political will for individual countries. It is not enough for the SDG and the national governments to be ambitious, peoples of the participating countries must be ambitious about the program as well; its requirements must be understood and internalized by the public. Furthermore, just as it is for individuals within a national society, the prosperity of individual nations of the international community is not progress, rather it is the source of inequality, thus unrest. As many nations as possible, if not all, must develop economically at the same time, or with comparable effort. What must be emphasized, therefore, is that not only national administrations but also their citizens must be convinced that their national prosperity is intertwined with the prosperity of other nations. Nations must strive to develop towards prosperity with the development of other nations in mind, not at their expense. National and international NGO networks could be excellent conduits in this respect.

In designing an international program to counter the adverse effects of climate change on economic development, the effects of domestic and international peace both on economic development and the environment should not be overlooked. UNSDG, being the source and the overseer of this international program, must also commit itself to support peaceful environment for development. like international financial assistance provided for development. Therefore, a goal must be included in SDGs for domestic administrations to establish and maintain domestic peace together with all the necessary Means of Implementation, financial assistance, regular assessments, etc. Such a global target, guidance and assistance for countries’ domestic peace will be helpful also for pursuing international peace. The synergic and symbiotic relation between prosperity and peace is “universal, indivisible” as the SDG itself. The UN’s maintenance of peace efforts will get a mutual boost.

Unlike 2012 Rio and 2015 UNSDG Resolutions’ constrained approach that the incorporation in the program a Goal of maintenance of peace may endanger the success of the SDGs, the integration of peace efforts with those of prosperity will reinforce the success of the Resolutions’ ambitious goals. The integration of this element in SDGs, without further delay, before the 2030 target date, will validate the political principle “prosperity may be achieved only with peace”, coined by the “transformative leader”[16], who adopted also the related political principle, “peace at home, peace in the world”[17].

             April 2023

 

[1] The political principle advanced by M.K. Ataturk, the first president of the Republic of Turkiye. See A. Mango, Atatürk; M. Camcigil Atatürk’s Thought, etc. …

[2] https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/NL7/300/05/IMG/NL730005.pdf?OpenElement

[3] https://Documents/Literature%20on%20UN%20Sustainable%20Development%20program/Brundtland%20report%20UN.pdf

[4] idem

[5] https://www.un.org/en/conferences/environment/rio1992  

[6]https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf

[7] Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012, 66/288. The Future We Want 2012 UN Rio Conf. Resolution.pdf

[8] Prototype Global Sustainable Development Report 2014 Prototype SDG report.pdf

[9] TRANSFORMING OUR WORLD: THE 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT A/RES/70/1           sustainabledevelopment.un.org  (See Attachment for the relevant parts of the Declaration)

[10] 24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf (un.org)

[11] An Optimistic Analysis of the Means of Implementation for Sustainable Development Goals: Thinking about Goals as Means, Mark Elder et al. , Sustainability 2016, 8(9), 962

[12] A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions Prajal Pradhan et al., Earth’s Future, Volume5, Issue11 November 2017 Pages 1169-1179

[13] Success factors of global goal-setting for sustainable development: Learning from the Millennium Development Goals Thomas Hickmann et al., 23 November 2022 Success factors of global goal‐setting for sustainable development: Learning from the Millennium Development Goals - Hickmann - Sustainable Development - Wiley Online Library

[14] The top 5 sustainability and climate trends to watch in 2023, Martin Koehring, 31 December, 2022, Economist Impact

[15] Scientific evidence on the political impact of the Sustainable Development Goals Frank Biermann et al. Nature Sustainability volume 5, pages795–800 (2022) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00909-5

^{[16] Robert Crease, The Workshop and the World, Norton &Co.2019}

 ^[17] See end note 1.

Attachment

Sustainable Development Goals and Targets

(Excerpts relevant to the present article)

Declaration

   Introduction

…………   

3. We resolve, between now and 2030, to end poverty and hunger everywhere; to combat inequalities within and among countries; to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies; to protect human rights and promote gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls; and to ensure the lasting protection of the planet and its natural resources. …. They are integrated and indivisible and balance the three dimensions of sustainable development. …. ….

Our vision

7. In these Goals and targets, we are setting out a supremely ambitious and transformational vision. We envisage a world free of poverty, hunger, disease and want, where all life can thrive. We envisage a world free of fear and violence. A world with universal literacy. A world with equitable and universal access to quality education at all levels, to health care and social protection, where physical, mental and social wellbeing are assured. …

8.We envisage a world of universal respect for human rights and human dignity, the rule of law, justice, equality and non-discrimination;

 …….

Our shared principles and commitments

10.The new Agenda is guided by the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including full respect for international law. It is grounded in gthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, the Millenium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome. It is informed by other instruments such as the Declaration on the Right to Development. ………

Our world today

……….

We recommit ourselves to the full realization of all the Millennium Development Goals,

………

The new Agenda

18. We are announcing today 17 Sustainable Development Goals with 169 associated targets which are integrated and indivisible. …. In doing so, we reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Agenda is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the rights and obligations of States under international law.

 ……

35.Sustainable development cannot be realized without peace and security; and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development. The new Agenda recognizes the need to build peaceful, just and inclusive societies that provide equal access to justice and that are based on respect for human rights (including the right to development), on effective rule of law and good governance at all levels and on transparent, effective and accountable institutions.

 Factors which give rise to violence, insecurity and injustice, such as inequality, corruption, poor governance and illicit financial and arms flows, are addressed in the Agenda. We must redouble our efforts to resolve or prevent conflict and to support post conflict countries, including through ensuring that women have a role in peacebuilding and State building. We call for further effective measures and actions to be taken, in conformity with international law, to remove the obstacles to the full realization of the right of self-determination of peoples living under colonial and foreign occupation, which continue to adversely affect their economic and social development as well as their environment.

                         ………

Means of implementation

41. We recognize that each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development. ……….

42. We support the implementation of relevant strategies and programmes of action, …… We recognize the major challenge to the achievement of durable peace and sustainable development in countries in conflict and post conflict situations.

………….

55.The Sustainable Development Goals and targets are integrated and indivisible, global in nature and universally applicable, taking into account different national realities, capacities and levels of development and respecting national policies and priorities.

 …..

Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

16.1Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere

16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of children

16.3Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all

16.4By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime

16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms

16.6 Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making at all levels

16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance

16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration

16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements

16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

16.b Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

Goal 17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development

Finance

Technology

Capacity building

Trade

Systemic issues

                        …………

Means of implementation and the Global Partnership

64. …… We recognize the major challenge to the achievement of durable peace and sustainable development in countries in conflict and post conflict situations

                         …………

Global level

87. Meeting every four years under the auspices of the General Assembly, the high level political forum will provide high level political guidance on the Agenda and its implementation, identify progress and emerging challenges and mobilize further actions to accelerate implementation. The next high level political forum under the auspices of the General Assembly will be held in 2019, with the cycle of meetings thus reset, in order to maximize coherence with the quadrennial comprehensive policy review process.

 

 

 

Serbia, Russia’s Historical Fifth Column in Europe

 

Ethnic and religious kinship between Serbia and Russia gave Russia a political tool for manipulating and exploiting nationalist separatist emotions in the Austrian and Ottoman empires of 19^th century so as to ensure the weakness of these two neighboring empires. This policy led to the first WW in the early decades of the 20^th. WWI ended with the disappearance of those two empires and the appearance of several ethnically and religiously diverse and economically non-viable small states in the Balkans (an occurrence coined in the diplomatic parlance “balkanization”). Who benefitted from this outcome? Not the victorious western European countries, not the small countries emerged from the break-up of the said two empires, not even the truncated two empires. It was not a territorial gain for Russia either, but the fractious landscape created was consistent with the historical foreign policy, divide et impera, since the time of Peter the Great, thus a big achievement for Russia.

Today’s Serbia, although much weakened after the disappearance of Tito’s Yugoslavia, is still holding Damocles’ sword over Bosnia and Kosovo. NATO and EU assign a low priority to this problem among the more immediate and larger ones in Europe. Either because the Western countries do no longer have or believe in historical knowledge or because they over-trust their contemporary economic and military power so much that they belittle small festering issues at their doorstep. One would think that it is wiser to address problems when they are smaller than when they get bigger. The catastrophic consequences of delaying the admittance of Ukraine in NATO or at least in EU for petty reasons are before our eyes every day on TV screens. A delay that must have been caused either by formalities like time required for fulfilling membership requirements -which in fact should be secondary to strategic considerations- or for the politically ill-conceived consideration of not intimidating Russia. Russia does not hesitate to intimidate others. The West never learns its history lessons, for some inexplicable reasons.

Serbia can be stopped from harassing its neighbors by simply admitting Bosnia and Kosovo in the EU and NATO without further delay. The West has nothing to lose but much to gain from this fast track action, because no one, including the powerful West, has control over time ticking for unexpected events to occur. The EU and NATO red-tape for membership, can be suspended for the sake of urgency during this fast-moving troubled times of world affairs.

As regards Kosovo, there is yet a simpler and swifter action that can be taken. It is for Kosovo to declare close strategic and economic union with ethnic and religious kin Albania, which is already member of NATO. Anyway, Kosovo must be aware that it is not an economically and militarily viable state. Such union would not only keep Serbia from meddling in Kosovo but also strengthen both Kosovo and Albania.

Strategically, Serbia, the Russian island-fortress in the midst of the European history’s greatest alliance, can be isolated and neutralized.

January 2023

 

Looking at the United Nations Universe Through Clearer Lenses

The Seventy Seventh United Nations General Assembly is in sesssion. All the 193 states of the world (although the UN lists also Vatican and Palestine as states they have only an observer status in the organization) are in attendance. State representatives at the Conference present their respective country’s (truly, their current government’s) “official” achievements and their views of international concern to a mostly half-empty hall (except when the President of a major power, or of a country momentarily under a magnifying lens, speaks). The reaction of the general public to this annual ritual is complete disinterest and sometimes farcical or sarcastic. That is unfair, although it is true that this boring “official” statements may be made a little more interest-baring if national non-governmental efforts were also expressed by speakers.

There are two main reasons for this negative public view of the UN. One is intrinsic, the other extrinsic flaw. An approach to understanding the UN must consider the distinction between its two major functions. They are “to maintain international peace and security”, and “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character ..., human rights and for fundamental freedoms” (Article 1.1 and 1.3 of the Charter). The systemic complication in the procedures of the Security Council, in addition to complexities of international relations in general, constitutes the negative perception intrinsic to the UN. The multiplicity of international organizations with different status in relation with the UN constitutes the extrinsic cause for the public perception of the institution.

As to the systemic flaw, it is the imperfection imbedded in the UN’s constitution, which renders the UN handicapped for taking forcible actions that may sometimes be the only necessary, or the majority’s preferred action. The Security Council is empowered to “determine the existence of any threat to peace” and, if other means for ending the threat “would be inadequate”, to take military action with armed forces to be made “available to the Security Council” (Articles 42 and 43). However, decisions of the Security Council other than procedural matters require the concurrence of the five permanent members of the Council. (Article 23.3). This is from where the veto right of the major powers emanates. Military actions taken in the past all concerned internal conflicts in countries unable to stop large human sufferings, including the one between Palestinians and Israel. No military action can be taken against any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, who have the veto right, or against any country protected by any of the said five powers for that matter. Therefore, although the UN military interventions in some internal conflicts were relatively successful, the UN is powerless in taking military action against a threat by a nuclear power if other means for ending the threat “would be inadequate”. Nevertheless, this limitation on the UN should not be cause for downplaying the importance of the UN platform providing a chance to discuss the threat with a potential agressor.  

Furthermore, a more detailed clarification (or a limitation) of the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council may commit those powers to some restrain in using it and would improve the Council’s public image.

As to the the extrinsic cause, it is the average person’s lack of understanding of the complex structure of the UN. There are numerous agencies specialized in fields specific to each. They are succesful platforms not only for exchange of information and of views between states, also for developing common rules or standards, and technical or financial assistance to member states if and when needed. The work of the specialized agencies is mostly visible to and directly benefitted by people. The public thus appreciate agencies concerned, while overlooking the fact that the agencies are the product of the UN or they entered its orbit for the sake of international cohesion and strength. Most of these agencies report to one or another organ of the UN.

The success of these agencies is due to able, dedicated, and truly international-minded staff of the agencies (Sometimes, higher echelon officials of some agencies may be an exception to this definition because, if not weighing-in in favor of their national views, of their personal ego. This occurence, however, has a negligible effect on the respective organization’s general performance since the higher officials are more subject to replacement than longer-term staff, for the formers’ appointment are in fact the result of political compromises. Formally establishing a term-limit for high level officials may avert this flaw.)

The UN system organizations may be grouped under three types:

The agencies who carry out the UN’s function of “international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character ..., human rights and for fundamental freedoms”, like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), several agencies in the aviation or sea transport field, and some in humanitarian assistance, etc. The constitutional documents of these organizations generally require annual reporting to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the UN body concerned with economic and social matters. (It is noteworthy that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) does not have a constitutional requirement establishing such close relation to the UN, despite the fact that it is clearly an agency in charge of a social and closely economic matter).

Then, there are the agencies providing a world platform for financial matters, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction nd Development (IBRD), and the WB Group encompassing International Development Association (IDA), International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). We can add to this category the World Trade Organization (WTO) evolved from the old GATT agreement of 1947, which befittingly cooperates with the financial organizations IMF and IBRD. (Article III.5 of its constitutional document). These financial agencies do not have constitutional requirements to report to the UN, and rightly so. Understandably, they nevertheless closely cooperate with the UN.

A third category is the agencies in charge of regulating the use of certain materials that are potentially related to arms and security matters. They are the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Since they function as watchdogs for peaceful use of the materials in question they have a special status of reporting directly and expeditiously to the Security Council any infraction of such use (IAEA Statute Article III.B.1 and OPCW Agreement Article XII.4).

Despite these three variations they all keep close contact with the UN, which acts as the ultimate platform for the international exchange of information and assistance, or for international effort to maintain peace.

For the sake of completing this overview of international governmental organizations system, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) must also be mentioned. The Court is entirely and understandably independent from the sphere of the UN’s political and technical cooperation duties, because the Court is charged with settling disputes directly between states arising from a breach of international law.

If, therefore, the public at large were to be acquainted with this general and simplified view of the UN system, they may become more appreciative of the UN itself as being the focal point of all inter-governmental efforts for economic and social assistance as well as for avoidance of a threat to peace.

Furthermore, the innumerable international non-governmental civil society organizations operating in specific fields render invaluable services to the world community. The UN cooperates with many of them. This activity of the UN is another laudable contribution to world-wide prosperity and peace, placing the UN                           -metaphorically- to the gravitational center of “international universe” where we should hope to discover more “special satellites”.

September 2022

 

 

 

 

Is there a way to stop Putin’s madness?

 

First, we need to determine what his intentions and objectives are. These can be determined to the extent of his declared demands and statements, so-called known factors. He may have other undeclared intentions. These are the unknowns, but prudence would suggest that we have to make some educated guesses.

We may build our guesses on his declared concern of insecurity in the face of Ukraine’s intention to join NATO, which became evident after the Ukrainian people replaced the Russian puppet regime with a real Ukrainian administration in 2014. The fact, which has already been known and repeatedly declared on this occasion, is that NATO is not for annihilating Russia, but for defending against any attempt by Russia to annihilate Europe. Being a savvy and experienced politician, he knows this fact very well.

This reasoning leads us to infer that his real or main objective is to revenge for the eventual dissolution of Warsaw Pact after Russia’s agreement to the Reunification of Germany in the Final Settlement signed in 1990 in Moscow, while NATO remained and even enlarged. This objective would carry with it the assumption that he implies the revocation/reversing of all disarmament and peace building arrangements Russia signed since 1990, like Budapest Memorandum of 1994 recognizing the independence of Ukraine in exchange of her desisting its nuclear weapons, 1997 Cooperation and Security Agreement Between NATO And Russia, or CFE Final Act of 1999, etc. Simply put, in Putin's mind Russia has to enlarge and get stronger to counterbalance an “aggressive” NATO, if NATO were to be permitted to survive and even to get stronger.

At this point it may be useful to recall the history of czarist and its successor Soviet Russia. Their history is full of expansionist wars with their neighbors. Especially, the numerous wars of czars with the Baltic lands and the Ottomans. This explains Putin's invasion of Crimea in 2014 and his current advances on the Black Sea coast considered the sensitive underbelly as well as the jewel of Russia. In our advanced times he is clearly considering expanding towards the north as it is getting more and more accessible due to the climate change. His planting the Russian flag at the bottom of the North Pole some years ago must be likened to a dog marking his territory. This is another consideration we need to keep in mind while trying to contain Russia this time around. If the West is to avoid the constant intimidations by Russia, it has to change the way it responds to her intimidations. The West avoids escalation in the face of a Russian aggression for concern of loss of lives and treasures, a civilized approach. But, Russia, not being sensitive to losing lives and treasures, takes advantage of this Western civility and agrees to a settlement in which she gets at least part of what it wanted in the first place. This may be the reason for Russia to start out with a higher bidding in her moves. 

In other words, his action is not motivated by a real threat but by a willful intention to undo what the Russian State has already agreed to in many international commitments (some on his watch) for international peace. Hence, the invasion of Ukraine is an excuse or the beginning of an international chaos. If this inference is correct, then it may be that Putin is on a non-negotiable course. Therefore, he has to be stopped before he upsets the world peace further and causes more human suffering. Can this be done and if so how? The urgent measures that come to mind in the order of importance are:

1.     The discussion of the situation with China with utmost urgency. Cooperation with China is the guarantee of success of any measure the West would take in resolving the Ukraine crisis. This crisis may be a good opportunity to establish good relations with the roaring dragon. The West is wrong to see a flourishing China as an adversary or threat instead of a peaceful competitor. The US must avoid unnecessary disasters as she did, for example in Iraq, by misreading other countries’ mentalities and cultures. We need to stop gaging other peoples against our own standards. Some needs and aspirations common to humanity may be met through different manners.

2.     The West must secure the participation of as many countries as possible from among the one hundred forty UN members who condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and most importantly of China in an ultimatum to be given to Putin.

3.     The ultimatum may comprise at the least: The withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine, including from Crimea, within a given time period; The withholding of all foreign assets of Russia is for rebuilding the material destructions she caused and for compensation of victims or their survivors; The complete embargo on Russia (financial, trade, economic) is to continue until a peace treaty is ratified by a Russian public referendum (not by Duma); The immediate start of negotiations for a peace treaty for which Russian delegation will include three members elected directly by the people; The peace Treaty to include a denunciation of any and all territorial claims by the Russian people; The peace treaty expectedly to include a provision that any future Russian aggression or any threat thereof (military, financial, trade, economic, cyber, and/or misinformation) will trigger actions to be taken jointly by the majority of the signatories of the ultimatum as they deem appropriate.

The West must take seriously the lessons of history presented by the Russian state’s policy in international affairs and consider stopping utopic efforts of bringing it to the community of the modern world. The last such effort, after the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union, has in fact gave birth to the current expansionist move by Putin. He clearly and repeatedly made his displeasure known about the replacement of Moscow oriented regime in Ukraine with one western oriented, and NATO’s enlargement policies. His invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 and his 16^th-17^th century style machinations in Donbass area had already provided sufficient reason for the West to take actions to stop him on his tracks. NATO must have, at that time, immediately accepted Ukraine into its fold by suspending all formalities for admission to membership.

Since now Putin took the initiative of confrontation and the West wants to avoid a calamitous world war, the West has to start thinking of blocking where he would go next. Moldova is clearly in his horizon. It may be a wise move to take that nondescript country under NATO umbrella without any ado, any delay. In fact, unlike the case of Ukraine, there may be a fast and easy way of providing that umbrella by coxing Moldova (and of course Romania) to declare federation with Romania who is already a NATO member. With a provision that Moldova can opt out of the federation any time in the future and Moldova’s ethnicity and language being the same as Romania’s (about 75%), such federation may be feasible. However, this fait accompli must materialize before Russian troops reach there first. The same blocking maneuver may be considered also for Kosovo federating with Albania (co-ethnicity and language over 92%), in consideration of the fact that Putin may go so far as deputizing Serbia, Russia’s historical representative in the Balkans.

Russia not only must withdraw totally from Ukraine, must also be deprived of all the bridgeheads she established in history in her "near abroad" for any future intervention pretext, like Kaliningrad, Transnistria, Crimea, Georgia, Armenia, and more recently Syria, if we were to avoid her future aggressions and to maintain a world peace.

Hundred and fifty years ago Europe was more cognizant of Russia’s expansionist spirit, thus was more determined to subvert it: 1856 Crimean War to stop Russia taking away the peninsula from the Ottomans, and the European intervention to replace the 1878 San Stefano Treaty with that of 1878 Berlin Treaty that saved the “Europe’s sick man”, Ottoman Empire, die in Russian hands. Today’s worldwide protests against the ongoing tragedy in Ukraine offers a golden opportunity to put a decisive end to the centuries old expansionist desires of Russian leaders by getting both the 21^st century Russian people (instead of the government) and the world community to support such drastic actions as suggested above.

What is the alternative? The West’s complete capitulation to Putin’s objective of bringing Ukraine back to Russian sphere, or returning to status quo ante by a negotiated agreement hence mutual concessions. It should not be hard to expect that Putin’s concession would be to withdraw against a West concession of recognizing his annexation of Crimea and the two Donbass Oblasts and Ukraine’s denunciation of membership in any European organization. Such agreement translates, of course, into a victory for Putin, because he had set out to achieve this end anyway by aiming higher. As to the West, it will go back to its usual policy of peace and “soft diplomacy” using the attraction of freedoms to win the minds of the Russian people. Whereas Russian state’s expansionist policy will survive Putin as it did many times since Ivan I aspired to be the successor to the Byzantine Empire after the latter’s fall to the Ottomans. In other words, a status quo ante today will engender tomorrow's fall of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan back into the Russian sphere, and ultimately the addition of Syria and the Arctic to it.

March 4, 2022