Tag Archives: India.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH OUR WORLD DISINTERGRATING, IS IT NOT TIME TO REPLACE THE UNITED NATIONS?

04 Sunday Feb 2024

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2024 the year of disconnection, United Nations

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

( Six minute read)

WORLD, COME TO MY HOME!: 1174-1176 UNITED NATIONS - The flag of the ...

The United Nations is the most powerful international organisation in the world. Founded after World War Two, the UN aims to maintain global peace and security though international cooperation and dialogue.

Although the UN is seen as a bed-rock of the post-War world order, it is regularly criticised for its failings.

There are some who say the world would be better without the UN. Bedevilled by a litany of challenges, including gross underfunding, bloated bureaucracy, disunity, and geopolitical rivalry among the permanent members of the Security Council.

Would it be?

Today, many countries still put their own geo-political objectives ahead of any UN requirements.

This is the main failing of the United Nations.  Western powers, for example, are overrepresented in the five permanent members. Entire regions lack a permanent seat but nevertheless are bound to Security Council resolutions. Today, it lacks strong support in popular culture.

—————–

The United Nations stands at a crossroads.

The need to reform the United Nations is critical.

Political leaders, experts, and civil society agree that the United Nations is lagging behind global change, failing to anticipate emerging risks, and not adequately resolving or mitigating global challenges.

There is no longer any doubt that three primary threats endanger the existence of humanity: Climate change, infectious disease, and nuclear weapons are the core global challenges but disruptive technological, societal, and ecological developments impose new challenges that require new partnerships beyond the current state-centric global architecture.

The age of disinformation and ever-increasing influence of social media has left truth and facts more coloured by predesignated concepts and ideas.

Ideally, the Security Council should be stripped of veto power when a matter relating to any these existential threats is on the agenda.

The greatest challenge confronting the organization—one that has repeatedly rendered it unable to act decisively on critical global issues—is intransigence among the permanent members of the Security Council.

At a time of profound global change and increasing competition over values, treating climate change as simply another environmental problem rather than a crosscutting factor affecting all aspects of human life should have a dedicated UN institution focusing on Climate change not as one problem among many, but as a unique crisis that affects all activities.

————————

UN reform has been on the agenda since the organization was created in 1945.

The Security Council as currently constituted in terms of membership, functions, and powers cannot effectively respond to the myriad crises engulfing the world.

As powerful countries move toward unilateralism, populism, and nationalism at the expense of multilateralism and collective action, a united and forward-looking Security Council capable of effectively driving the wider United Nations to achieve its goals is sine qua non.

——————-

What would actually happen if the United Nations collapsed, or was disbanded?

Realistically, there are two main ways that the United Nations could collapse. There are many ways that the UN might cease to exist but these can be divided into ‘internal’ and ‘external’ causes.

Internal:  Financial collapse, or a major internal scandal, or the UN deciding voluntarily to disband itself.

External: National governments collectively deciding to dispend the UN, some major, or many minor countries deciding to leave or countries withdrawing funding. Data governance at the global level lags well behind technological developments.

The collapse of the UN would also remove a key arena for global dialogue and could be followed by a potential re-alignment of the world order as there would no longer be a forum for dialogue between nations and its conceivable with a vacuum in international law many conflicts could reignite.

The first thing that would happen if the UN collapsed is that funding to the UN’s international programmes would stop.

It is likely that it would be replaced with another inter-governmental organisation.

The pre-curser to the UN was the League of Nations, disbanded in 1946.

Historians generally agree the League of Nations failed for five main reasons. These are:

  • It failed to encompass all countries, with major powers such as the United States not joining. Many countries also left the League of Nations or only joined for a short-time.
  • Countries put their own geo-political objectives ahead of the League of Nations requirement for collective security.
  • The League of Nations did not have its own army, and so relied on member states to use military force. Many were not willing to as their populations did not support another war.
  • Disarmament was a major aim of the League of Nations, meaning countries were encouraged to reduce military spending. This meant intervening militarily against countries that went against the League was made more difficult.
  • The League had no power to stop countries taking aggressive action. When countries such as Germany or Japan began attacking their neighbours, the League was powerless to stop them.

——————-

Let’s take each one and see if the modern United Nations could fail for the same reasons?

It currently supports the global order. All major nations, especially those included in the Security Council, have a vested interest in retaining the United Nations as it helps them maintain power.

Another reason why the United Nations is unlikely to collapse is that, although there are many legitimate criticisms of the UN, any organisation that were to replace it would unlikely be more successful.

This is because any global forum of nations requires a degree of flexibility and pragmatism in order to incorporate all countries. Although this means the UN’s power to affect change is limited, a more controlling inter-governmental organisation would see nations leaving when decisions went against them.

———————–

Today, everyone seems to have problems with multilateralism, which is eroding the authority of global institutions.

More than ever the world needs collective action.

Working out how to bring the United Nations closer to “we the people” and remaining relevant for future generations should drive the organization as it enters its next phase.

It’s the place where leaders come and give public speeches but that really nothing meaningful gets done.

The Security Council, which is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, has often been paralyzed by the veto power of its five permanent members – the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom. This has made it difficult for the Security Council to take decisive action in conflicts such as the Syrian civil war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and more recently in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

It is unable to stop war, it is unable to end famine, it is unable to stop conflicts, it is unable to manage migration, it does not push for global disbarment

Somewhere, the spirit of collectivist has to be regenerated.

The ineffectiveness of the UN are simply a reflection of those dysfunctional characteristics of the international system.

The most important prerequisite for an effective global institution may be a concert of powers.

—————

There is no credible alternative in sight so the UN must be retooled and updated to tackle today’s challenges

Can 193 nations with competing agendas undertake major reforms?  NO!

However we are inching closer to “a great fracture.” Conflicts, coups and chaos are surging. The climate crisis is growing. Divides are deepening between military and economic powers, the richer North and poorer South, East and West. A new Rubicon has been crossed in artificial intelligence.

Can it be reformed?

THIS CAN ONLY BE ACHIVED IF THE UN IS BROKEN UP INTO A MORE TARGETED ORGANISATION.

By creating an international antivirus consortium, protecting biodiversity, and strengthening warning protocols within UN agencies.

We cannot inch towards agreement while the world races towards a precipice.

It must and we all must unite behind a common purpose, or we all be speaking to an empty room.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Are we sleepwalking our way into a nuclear Armageddon.

31 Saturday Jan 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on Are we sleepwalking our way into a nuclear Armageddon.

Tags

, ,

Because we have learnt to live with nuclear weapons for 68 years, we have become desensitized to the gravity and immediacy of the threat they pose.

A nuclear catastrophe could destroy us any time.

The tyranny of complacency could yet exact a fearful price if we sleep walk our way into a nuclear Armageddon.

This series of post is a layman attempt to lift the shroud of the mushroom cloud from the international body politic that governs Nuclear Power.

The next member in the Nuclear Club is India. 

The world’s largest democracy and second most populous country (over 1.18 billion people) has emerged as a major power after a period of foreign rule and several decades during which its economy was virtually closed.

Often seen by outsiders as a crippled country, emaciated by poverty, and emasculated by philosophy India tested its first fission device in May 1974, and now possesses full nuclear fuel cycle capabilities.

It is supposed to have a declared nuclear no-first-use policy and is in the process of developing a nuclear doctrine based on “credible minimum deterrence, a policy of “retaliation only.  (Without of course defining what ‘‘minimum’’ meant or toward whom.)

On No First Use (NFU): is away with the fairies as it implies probable large-scale destruction of India before it presses the button with constraints. “It will not be the first to initiate a nuclear first strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.”  Pull the other leg.

India has closely guarded the details of its nuclear posture since it became an overt nuclear weapons state in 1998. Its entire nuclear journey has been shrouded in remarkable secrecy.

Like its fellow members of the club it is addicted to power. It enjoys submitting to it, the aesthetic of it. I would venture to say that it is not concerned with any practical reality, but with hypotheses or dogma.  Its to old to care. With its sense of hierarchy which contributes to the bafflement of India reality is a deception.

Indian acquired its nuclear weapons with the intention of deterring China’s territorial ambitions. It failed to achieve that purpose and—worse—provoked a weaker power, Pakistan, to develop a nuclear deterrent to its benefit. China pursued a policy until the early 1990s of supporting Pakistan’s nascent nuclear program, a move very much directed at containing India. Chinese assistance proved an impetus for India’s nuclear-weapon pursuit, not the other way around.

For a relatively mature democracy with a vibrant political culture, the level of opacity surrounding India’s nuclear posture is extraordinary.

A pluralistic, multilingual and multicultural society that these days has no need for a Nuclear Warhead.  India voted against the UN General Assembly resolution endorsing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which was adopted on September 10, 1996.

It now has a stockpile of approximately 30-35 nuclear warheads and claims that it is producing additional nuclear materials which we are told is held in a disassembled state. ( A complete myth for obvious reasons)

How has India benefited from its nuclear weapons?

You tell me.  I can see no benefit other than have a  mutual deterrence, a facade of corrupt power which it has in abundance.

Would you mind telling we what is the use of building an indigenous nuclear-powered submarine armed with the ‘K’ series nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, named  the INS Arihant.  After all, nuclear weapons did not prevent American and Soviet allies from killing tens of millions of each other’s people between 1945 and 1991, nor did they deter the 9/11 attacks.

It might be a good idea if some one in the Club released that 50 Hiroshima-size bombs, are enough to kills up to a billion people around the world, and in addition to direct blast, heat and radiation deaths would severely disrupt global food production and markets and cause a nuclear war-induced famine.

This why nuclear powers must accept defeat at the hands of non-nuclear states rather than escalate armed conflict to the nuclear level.  Nor can they be used for defense against nuclear-armed rivals.

The normative taboo against this most indiscriminately inhumane weapon ever invented is so comprehensive and powerful that under no conceivable circumstances will its use against a non-nuclear state compensate for the political costs.

As long as anyone has nuclear weapons, others will want them; as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will be used again some day by design, accident, miscalculation or rogue launch; any nuclear exchange anywhere would have catastrophic consequences for the whole world.

The prospects of major conflict are ever more remote.

Nuclear weapons cannot be credited with these developments.

Nuclear weapons again cannot be credited or blamed for the contrasting fortunes of the two subcontinental powers, but perhaps India did stand to gain in relative terms from the modicum of stability they provided.

In April 2013, Canada and India signed a bilateral safeguards agreement for trade in nuclear materials and technology used in IAEA safeguarded facilities. India has long sought to secure a bilateral civilian nuclear agreement with Japan. However, the stalemate continues since the two parties failed to secure an agreement during a five-day meeting between the two Prime Ministers in September 2014.  Also in September 2014, Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott and India’s Narendra Modi signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. This agreement paves the way for Australia to export uranium for India’s civilian nuclear program.“nuclear weapons are an integral part of our national security and will remain so pending the global elimination of all nuclear weapons.”

Both the benefits and limitations of nuclear weapons are best captured by a single fact:

Of all nuclear-armed adversaries, only the Soviet Union and China in 1969 and India and Pakistan in 1999 ever fought a war with one another.

The fact that such conflict took place at all and that military competition between and against nuclear powers often took other forms, including the use of proxies and non state actors.

Amid volatile energy costs, the accompanying push to expand nuclear energy, growing concerns about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, and the continued diffusion of scientific and technical knowledge, access to dual-use technologies seems destined to grow.

The shortcomings of the Treaties to reduce or total remove nuclear weapons are equally obvious: They have proven inadequate to arrest the spread of nuclear technology, never mind the odd warhead.

International instruments for combating nuclear proliferation are proving unable to meet today’s challenges not a single known or suspected case of proliferation since the early 1990s—Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, or Syria—was deterred or reversed by the multilateral institutions created for this purpose.

Go back

Your message has been sent