United Nations Charter – USA Gov Policy

The annual ritual when countries that have failed their citizenry through bad governance and worse economics gather to lecture and make demands of nations with truly representative leadership and successful economies will again commence when the General Assembly of the United Nations opens its seventieth session on September 15 in New York.

The opening of the session will be followed, in the second week, by the United Nations summit to adopt the post-2015 development agenda—a high-level plenary meeting taking place from September 25, through September 27—when world leaders are expected to agree to a new set of sustainability measures. The Assembly’s annual general debate, when Heads of State and Government and other senior national representatives gather to present their views about pressing world issues, will open on September 28, and run through October 5.

The United Nations Charter reaffirms “faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women…” However, far too many members of that body utterly ignore that concept. Two permanent members of the U.N. Security Council—China and Russia- regularly and substantially violate key tenets of the Charter. Over the decades since the document was first signed on June 26, 1945, far too many members have been admitted and remain who have no affinity with the concepts of individual rights, the equality of the sexes, or the principle of resolving international disputes through negotiation.

There is little doubt that vital issues currently affecting the world won’t be seriously addressed. Several examples of problems that will either be ignored or given little serious consideration:

the growing military threats and actions from Russia , China, Iran, and North Korea—(U.N. members all, China and Russia are members of the Security Council);
the enslavement and repression of Women in Islamic states;
the impoverishment of many national populations due to official corruption or the imposition of failed economic models;
the continued repression against Christians in China and the Middle East;
the growing trend of internet censorship.

Married women love the fact women viagra that they are approached and will anchor you in a long conversation with them. Combat cialis soft 20mg Asthma Asthma patient needs to drink tea regularly in order to find out the status of your health. It generic cialis buy has a stark reputation on being finest in working for the disease. Whom to trust? ere are general characteristics best generic tadalafil http://downtownsault.org/pats-foods/ of impotence supplements available in the market.
The philosophical dilemma facing the United Nations, in addition to the positions of power held by governments that have no affinity with the democratic principles of the organization, is an adherence to a moral equivalence, in which the attainment of a consensus is more important than insuring that justice prevails. The reality is that while nations that openly or in practice oppose basic concepts of individual rights, representative government, and nonaggression continue to hold significant positions of power and influence, the United Nations will not be a viable avenue to achieve worthwhile goals.

The time has come for nations that do practice the principles of open government and individual rights and nonaggression towards other countries, to consider whether the basic format of the United Nations is a viable platform for the international community to meet and work together.

How rational is it to give repressive regimes a voice on the U.N.’s Human Rights Council? Russia’s Mikhail Lebedev and China’s Yishan Zhang are 2016 members of that body. The Express-Tribune recently reported that Edward Snowden (the former U.S. intelligence contractor who controversially released significant amounts of sensitive U.S. data and is now living in Russia) has sharply criticizing Moscow’s deteriorating human rights record. Despite that, there is no question of Moscow’s continued membership in the U.N. Security Council, giving it a veto in any important decision the world body makes.

The anti-semitic tendencies of the U.N. are also an important problem. Despite the fact that Israel adheres more firmly to the organization’s charter than any of its regional neighbors, it is the Jewish state that is the subject of the most intense criticism.

A general forum in which all parties can meet and present their viewpoints is good and necessary. However, decision making should be the sole province of those who have truly adopted the principles of human rights and peaceful resolutions. The United Nations must either be reformed or replaced with a more viable organization led by states that truly practice the principles its charter espouses.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.