TIGblogs - Steve's TIGBlog http://Steve04.tigblog.org/ What's on the minds of young leaders from around the globe? en-us EXTRADITION -WHO ART THOU? http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/357009
The radiation poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko which led to his horrifying death in London raised international furore with Britain and Russia as the principal actors. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to the foundation laid by British detectives that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by toxic polonium 210 which the law enforcement officers traced to Andrei Logovoy in Russia. From this connection, Britain demanded that Andrei Logovoy be extradited by Russia for trial in Britain for murder of Alexander Litvinenko. As would be expected, given the recent relationship between the two countries, Russia flatly declined this demand. Instead, Russia requested whatever information or evidence the British authorities have should be handed to them and they would trial Andrei Logovoy under Russian law, within Russian jurisdiction.

The brief narrative of the root of the dispute in this respect between Britain and Russia may appear as a simple conflict of interests on the part of both countries. But it is a bit more intricate. Apparently, politics is a factor in this fallout by these countries. Though both countries maintain their different positions are founded on legal principles and moral justification, these principles are subtly moulded on political interests.

True, Britain can require the extradition of Andrei Logovoy from Russia. If Britain’s demand cannot be based on domestic laws of Britain, it most certainly can be based on European law which allows extradition between the two countries –and which both Britain and Russia have accented to. Under the canopy of this law, both countries could arrange extradition of offenders between themselves. Inspite of this European law, Russia has never extradited its citizens to Britain –neither has Britain extradited its own citizens to Russia for trial. And, Russia has maintained that it will not extradite Andrei Logovoy to Britain –or any other country for that matter. Britain and Russia, therefore, find themselves in a diplomatic imbroglio.

A puzzling thought that comes to mind is: why would Britain insist on such extradition when historical records show that such demand has close to no likelihood of success? Especially with the frayed relationship which currently exists between both countries? With the accusations, and counter-accusations, by government representatives on either side? To the extent that diplomats were expelled on both sides? This is a food for thought. However, one reason may be with the aim of isolating Russia. But this would serve no good to anyone. Particularly when one brings into consideration the fact that Russia’s request to the British government for the extradition of Boris Berezovsky was rebuffed by Britain. If Britain harbours and protects a person sought by the Russian government for serious crimes against his government, what moral grounds does Britain have to expect that Russian would accede to the extradition of someone Britain claims to be a criminal agent of the Russian government? Does Britain consider that the rules applicable to Russia are not applicable to it? Another reason Russia would not even consider any productive cooperation with Britain is the former’s current global posturing, which is quite diametrical opposed to that of Britain and certain other western countries. The question remains: why did Britain embark on such a journey that was doomed to fail from the onset? Does Britain imagine it has some kind of clout or weight over Russia?
We welcome feedbacks from you. Please e-mail us what you think.
]]> Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:04:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/357009 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 Proteection of the Marine Environment under UNCLOS 1982 http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/227107 Stephen Edetanlen

Thor Heyerdahl, sailing the Atlantic in his papyrus raft, Ra, found globs of oil, tar and plastics stretching from the coast of Africa to South America. Parts of the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea are already so polluted that marine life is severely threatened. And waste dumped in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has washed up on the shores of Antarctica.

In the United States, long stretches of beaches are often closed because of medical and other waste washing up on shore. And every time an oil tanker is involved in an accident, the world's pulse quickens a bit in fear of a major catastrophe. In fact, every time a tanker cleans its tanks at sea, every time a factory channels toxic residues to coastal waters or a city conveniently releases raw sewage into the sea, every time a service station changes the oil of a car and pours the waste oil into the sewers, the oceans become a little more polluted. Eventually, scientists fear, the oceans' regenerative capacity will be overwhelmed by the amount of incoming, man-made pollution. Signs of such catastrophe are clearly observed in many seas—particularly along the heavily populated coasts and enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

There are six main sources of ocean pollution addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): land-based and coastal activities; continental-shelf drilling; potential seabed mining; ocean dumping; vessel-source pollution; and pollution from or through the atmosphere.

First of all, the Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all states to protect and preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Coastal states are empowered to enforce their national standards and anti-pollution measures within their territorial sea. Every coastal state is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the marine environment of its exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Such jurisdiction allows coastal states to control, prevent and reduce marine pollution from dumping, land-based sources or seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, or from or through the atmosphere. With regard to marine pollution from foreign vessels, coastal states can exercise jurisdiction only for the enforcement of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or for "generally accepted international rules and standards". Such rules and standards, many of which are already in place, are adopted through a competent international organization, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
On the other hand, it is the duty of the "flag state", the state where a ship is registered and whose flag it flies, to enforce the rules adopted for the control of marine pollution from vessels, irrespective of where a violation occurs. This serves as a safeguard for the enforcement of international rules, particularly in waters beyond the national jurisdiction of the coastal state, i.e., on the high seas.

Furthermore, the UNCLOS gives enforcement powers to the "port state", or the state where a ship is destined. In doing so it has incorporated a method developed in other conventions for the enforcement of treaty obligations dealing with shipping standards, marine safety and pollution prevention. The port state can enforce any type of international rule or national regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or applicable international rules as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their offshore terminals. This has already become a significant factor in the strengthening of international standards.
Finally, as far as the international seabed area is concerned, the International Seabed Authority, through its Council, is given broad discretionary powers to assess the potential environmental impact of a deep seabed mining operation, recommend changes, formulate rules and regulations, establish a monitoring programme and recommend issuance of emergency orders by the council to prevent serious environmental damage. States are to be held liable for any damage caused by either their own enterprise or contractors under their jurisdiction.

With the passage of time, United Nations’ involvement with the law of the sea has expanded as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but global problems as a whole are interrelated. Already, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, placed a great deal of emphasis on the protection and preservation of the oceans’ environment in harmony with the rational use and development of their living resources, thus establishing the concept of "sustainable development" embodied in Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted at the Conference.
A recurring topic in implementing the programme of action adopted in Rio De Janeiro is the necessity to combat the degradation and depletion of fish stocks, both in the zones under national jurisdiction and in the high seas. A second recurring topic is addressing fish stock depletion causes, such as overfishing and excess fishing capacity, by-catch and discards.

In this respect, among the most important outputs of the conference was the convening of an intergovernmental conference under United Nations auspices. The intergovernmental conference was convened with a view to resolving the old conflict between coastal states and distant-water fishing states over straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the areas adjacent to the 200 nautical-mile EEZs.

This conference adopted the 1995 Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The agreement introduces a number of innovative measures, particularly in the area of environmental and resource protection obliging states to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries exploitation and giving expanded powers to port states to enforce proper management of fisheries resources.
We welcome feedbacks from you. Please e-mail us what you think.
]]> Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:07:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/227107 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 Protection of the Marine Environment under UNCLOS 1982 http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/227547 Stephen Edetanlen

Thor Heyerdahl, sailing the Atlantic in his papyrus raft, Ra, found globs of oil, tar and plastics stretching from the coast of Africa to South America. Parts of the Baltic, Mediterranean and Black Sea are already so polluted that marine life is severely threatened. And waste dumped in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans has washed up on the shores of Antarctica.

In the United States, long stretches of beaches are often closed because of medical and other waste washing up on shore. And every time an oil tanker is involved in an accident, the world's pulse quickens a bit in fear of a major catastrophe. In fact, every time a tanker cleans its tanks at sea, every time a factory channels toxic residues to coastal waters or a city conveniently releases raw sewage into the sea, every time a service station changes the oil of a car and pours the waste oil into the sewers, the oceans become a little more polluted. Eventually, scientists fear, the oceans' regenerative capacity will be overwhelmed by the amount of incoming, man-made pollution. Signs of such catastrophe are clearly observed in many seas—particularly along the heavily populated coasts and enclosed or semi-enclosed seas.

There are six main sources of ocean pollution addressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982): land-based and coastal activities; continental-shelf drilling; potential seabed mining; ocean dumping; vessel-source pollution; and pollution from or through the atmosphere.

First of all, the Convention lays down the fundamental obligation of all states to protect and preserve the marine environment. It further urges all states to cooperate on a global and regional basis in formulating rules and standards and otherwise take measures for the same purpose. Coastal states are empowered to enforce their national standards and anti-pollution measures within their territorial sea. Every coastal state is granted jurisdiction for the protection and preservation of the marine environment of its exclusive economic zones (EEZs). Such jurisdiction allows coastal states to control, prevent and reduce marine pollution from dumping, land-based sources or seabed activities subject to national jurisdiction, or from or through the atmosphere. With regard to marine pollution from foreign vessels, coastal states can exercise jurisdiction only for the enforcement of laws and regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or for "generally accepted international rules and standards". Such rules and standards, many of which are already in place, are adopted through a competent international organization, namely the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
On the other hand, it is the duty of the "flag state", the state where a ship is registered and whose flag it flies, to enforce the rules adopted for the control of marine pollution from vessels, irrespective of where a violation occurs. This serves as a safeguard for the enforcement of international rules, particularly in waters beyond the national jurisdiction of the coastal state, i.e., on the high seas.

Furthermore, the UNCLOS gives enforcement powers to the "port state", or the state where a ship is destined. In doing so it has incorporated a method developed in other conventions for the enforcement of treaty obligations dealing with shipping standards, marine safety and pollution prevention. The port state can enforce any type of international rule or national regulations adopted in accordance with the Convention or applicable international rules as a condition for the entry of foreign vessels into their ports or internal waters or for a call at their offshore terminals. This has already become a significant factor in the strengthening of international standards.
Finally, as far as the international seabed area is concerned, the International Seabed Authority, through its Council, is given broad discretionary powers to assess the potential environmental impact of a deep seabed mining operation, recommend changes, formulate rules and regulations, establish a monitoring programme and recommend issuance of emergency orders by the council to prevent serious environmental damage. States are to be held liable for any damage caused by either their own enterprise or contractors under their jurisdiction.

With the passage of time, United Nations’ involvement with the law of the sea has expanded as awareness increases that not only ocean problems but global problems as a whole are interrelated. Already, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, placed a great deal of emphasis on the protection and preservation of the oceans’ environment in harmony with the rational use and development of their living resources, thus establishing the concept of "sustainable development" embodied in Agenda 21, the programme of action adopted at the Conference.
A recurring topic in implementing the programme of action adopted in Rio De Janeiro is the necessity to combat the degradation and depletion of fish stocks, both in the zones under national jurisdiction and in the high seas. A second recurring topic is addressing fish stock depletion causes, such as overfishing and excess fishing capacity, by-catch and discards.

In this respect, among the most important outputs of the conference was the convening of an intergovernmental conference under United Nations auspices. The intergovernmental conference was convened with a view to resolving the old conflict between coastal states and distant-water fishing states over straddling and highly migratory fish stocks in the areas adjacent to the 200 nautical-mile EEZs.

This conference adopted the 1995 Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. The agreement introduces a number of innovative measures, particularly in the area of environmental and resource protection obliging states to adopt a precautionary approach to fisheries exploitation and giving expanded powers to port states to enforce proper management of fisheries resources.
We welcome feedbacks from you. Please e-mail us what you think.
]]> Wed, 04 Jul 2007 04:07:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/227547 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 SECURITY COUNCIL’S HARIRI RESOLUTION –a review http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/222503 -by Barr. Stephen Edetanlen.

The Security Council, on 30th May 2007, adopted Resolution 1757 establishing a Special Tribunal for Lebanon to come into force on 10th June, 2007। Essentially, the Tribunal is to “try” those found to be responsible for the February 14th 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri। Earlier, in its investigations, the UN had indicted officers in both the Syrian and Lebanese administrations of some level of culpability.
Summarily, according to the Security Council, the pivot of this Resolution is founded upon two premises: a request by the Lebanese Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora to the Secretary-General of the UN in December 2005 (S/2005/783) and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The request was expressed in a letter of December 13th, 2005 “requesting inter alia the establishment of a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are found responsible for this terrorist crime”. Afterwards, the Security Council requested the Secretary-General to negotiate an agreement with the Government of Lebanon aimed at establishing such a Tribunal based on the highest international standards of criminal justice. There is no doubt that this request is a valid invitation to the UN to act. The question I find hard put to reconcile is whether the Council, whereas there is a competent judicial body (the International Court of Justice) established by the Charter to exercise judicial functions, ought to constitute a separate body, particularly bearing in mind the basic principle of nemo dat non quod habet? Therefore, the question that arises is, albeit the request may be justified, is the Council’s Tribunal? Secondly, although, in its characteristic form in its resolutions, the Security Council does not specify the specific Charter provisions it relies on, for all intents and purposes, the relevant provision under Chapter VII would be Article 39 which states: The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. No stretch of interpretation of the above provision would ground the kind of descent by the Security Council into the internal affairs of a sovereign state, particularly when read vis-à-vis Articles 41, 42 and 2(7) of the Charter. Had Lebanon investigated and came out with allegations that the terrorist act was sponsored by another state, then as in the Nicaragua case, the UN would be called in –more appropriately, the matter referred to the ICJ. In my humble submission, it is only and after this fails that Chapter VII may come into play. For the avoidance of doubt, I firmly agree that Prime Minister Hariri’s assassination was horrific and gravely condemned. But the point I am making is these are criminal or terrorist acts which fall under the purview of the affected state’s internal affairs, though it may involve third states, occasionally. However, as long as it can be processed with the state or states, and does not degenerate into a situation that threatens regional or international peace, there is no place for the UN there. And, should it become a matter coming under the ambit of the UN, it should be properly directed to the appropriate body constituted to deal with the arisen matter. Not forgetting that even the Prime Minister’s request for intervention will be invalidated if the proper constitutional procedure has been followed which would make the request an effectual one. In the circumstances, it was not necessary for me to look into the merits of the request, being that the Security Council’s action was already flawed, even if the request resulted from due observance of constitutional processes.
We welcome feedbacks from you. Please e-mail us what you think.
]]> Sat, 23 Jun 2007 01:06:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/222503 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 Blogger http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/209991 We welcome feedbacks from you. Please e-mail us what you think.]]> Fri, 25 May 2007 07:05:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/209991 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 How great thou wouldst, Nigeria! http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/191981
People of different nations of the world, where Nigerians can be found, will attest to the intellectual capabilities of Nigerians; we are the eight largest oil exporting country in the world; with fertile and arable land; a population of over 130m people and with a land mass of 923768 sq. km (about four times that of the United Kingdom). You will agree with me that Nigeria is truly rich. Sadly, however, these seem to be statistics, merely. Arguably, the foundation for the country's greatness was laid from inception. What remained, to achieve that goal, was proper management of these endowments.

Just that. All resources have been provided for. All that our "leaders" had/have to do, was to effectively and efficiently harness these abundant wealth for Nigeria to attain her position amongst the mighty nations of the world. And, this is what they have steadily and constantly failed to do!

Why, you may ask? Funny enough, the answer is very simple and obvious -greed! The so-called "leaders" that Nigeria has been unfortunate to have, have all been myopic in their thinking. Instead of putting the nation first, they put their avarice before national interest. Immediately they assume that prime position of governance, they become monetary gluttons, corrupt "public servants" who serve their thieving inclinations rather than the people. I sometimes wonder if they think they can ever "eat" up Nigeria's wealth completely. By their incorrigible and rapacious dispositions, what they succeed in doing in bending the country to the knee; setting us back; retarding our development economically and industrially, with endless consequential spill over effect. Constantly, good brains that would help build up the country emigrate to other lands; further stripping the country close to bare.

We need to make a commitment to reject, fight and stamp corruption out. Until we begin to see the ramifications of greed and corruption; until we resolve to shun personal gain and imbibe nationalistic principles; and, until we are ready to make personal sacrifices for the popular good, Nigeria will not be actually great. It is high time Nigeria became a really great nation, not "potentially" great. We must change the existing political ideology and the level of educational awareness in the country. Though that is only a starting point, it is a crucial element to changing Nigeria for the better.

I have started to make my little contributions in various ways. I will gladly welcome any effort to lift Nigeria up. Let us form a coalition for the progress, economic and industrial development of Nigeria. Let us work together to make Nigeria great. Join me.]]> Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:25:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/191981 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 SEF Preview http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/188047 Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:15:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/188047 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 Fidel's dead??!!! http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/188073
After having a little drink (mine was orange juice) and shooting some pool with some colleagues form work at a nearby pub, after work on Thursday night, I was a little bit light in my spirit on my way home. I was at London Bridge trying to find out from the display what time and which train to take, when my mobile phone start to ring. As usual, I was happy to receive a call. I looked at the number. It was a foreign number, from Nigeria, but not listed on my phone. Naturally, I answered the it, and the person on the other side said "it's me Omo". "Which Omo?" I asked. "Fidel wife", was the response. Then it registered. So I went on to ask how things were faring. I thought she was playing around and trying to be ironic when she said things were not fine. But that thought was short-lived by the next sentence: Fidel was dead. What?! Suddenly, I felt numb and speechless. My whole body, immediately felt weak. My interest in my surroundings was lost and my mind started racing. What does this all mean? I will never see Fidel on earth again? What about Omo, who he married less than two years before? And, the baby who is about 14 months old? Do I take the baby as my responsibility? Or, bring the mother overseas? Do I go back home? A thousand thoughts flooded my mind, as I became oblivious of my immediate environment.

God help us. I am so sad, even now. I did manage to ask her how he died. My one-syllable question was "how". To which she answered "stray bullet". It happened the Sunday before, on Fidel's way to work. That was on 15 April, 2007. All the way home, I was feeling very weak and listless. I got off the bus behind my house, walking home, I could not hold back any longer and I started to cry. I wiped my eyes of tears several times, but it kept coming. No single person saw me. I got home and my brother was in the kitchen cooking, I did not open the kitchen door and continued to my room upstairs. Still crying, I knelt down to pray, I could not. I sent an SMS to my other brother that I can not come to his house later that evening, as I have to sleep because I lost a "dear friend". I sent simple SMS to my fiance in Nigeria "Fidel is dead". They both called me, briefly. I wept, I prayed and I tried reading the Bible. I begged God to let Fidel wake up, because of Christ, me and God's mercy. Normally, I am starving when I get home from work. But I slept without eating that night. Fidel was gone.

Without doubt, I can say Fidel was my best and most reliable friend on earth. He was almost a brother. I told God this was my personal loss. Fidel was part of me. He would do anything for me, when I ask. He never tells me "no". A gentle and honest man, my Fidel. Oh God, what I loss for me. I thought if I had been in Benin (Nigeria), he would have still been alive! That was because I thought the stray bullet had resulted from the elections on that day. And, if I had told Fidel not to go out, he would not go out; or maybe he would come to visit me. But when I called his wife, for the first time since the sad news, she told me it was by a soldier's bullet. And now, also, I realize Nigeria does not conduct elections on Sunday. Now, Fidel is gone: dead. Typically, thee will be no enquiry and no disciplinary action will be taken against the gun-man (soldier). Why would a bullet be "straying?" I asked myself and later, by brother. What has Nigeria turned into? If there was professionalism and discipline, why would a serviceman's bullet stray? They handle their guns any way they see fit. They shoot indiscriminately. That is why.


Due to some irresponsible serviceman's callousness, I have lost a dependable and true friend. A young bride has been made a widow in her twenties. A little child will not grow up with the father; made fatherless. Oh God, please. Please, God, have mercy; raise Fidel up, I beseech You.]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2007 07:04:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/188073 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667 SECURITY COUNCIL DECISION MAKING: for them or us? http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/191997
With the establishment of the United Nations in the last century, the world had hoped to have an organized global forum and pseudo-executive system within which the nations of the world would find some common grounds, creating a sort of fellowship and sense of oneness which when harnessed would prove a strong enough platform for meeting of the minds, trashing out militating differences in national policies of members and moulding a paradigm for enduring global peace and security. The paramount basis for this arrangement was the fostering of global peace and security, together with the enabling structural and logistical prerequisites. To be effective in its purpose, five principal organs constitute the UN –though the continued relevance of one is uncertain. These organs are the General Assembly, Security Council, the Secretariat, International Court of Justice, the Trusteeship Council and Economic and Social Council.

The objectives of this multilateral global organization, the UN, were very desirable and quite laudable, to say the least. For the successful realization of these laudable objectives, however, it is pertinent for the organization to enjoy the trust of, at least, its members. The organizational machinery has to be dependable, effective and efficient. It should be capable of being relied upon. Due to the national and regional dynamics of the membership of the UN, a minimal level of trust will guarantee the functionality of this world organization. With a multi-national organization of this nature as the UN, with its large membership each of which has some “national interest” to protect, maintaining trust amongst them requires a high level of transparency and accountability.

Of the primary organs of this gigantic organization, without doubt, the two most important are the General Assembly and Security Council. Necessarily, therefore, it is in these two organs that transparency and accountability, which are foundational for the requisite trust, are most imperative. A review of the works and actions of these two organs discloses gross deficiency of trust, which is more pronounced in the Security Council! A simple and generally recognized means of attaining and manifesting trust is the adoption of open and democratic processes in decision-making. By and large, democracy is synonymous with transparency and accountability. Due to the sensitive responsibilities and significance of the Security Council, it is very important that it be seen as truly focused on the peace and security concerns of the global community and responsive to the interests of all its members. The General Assembly, on the other hand, could pass for a democratic plenary body. The representatives, apparently reach decisions based on consensus of the majority. The same cannot be said of the Security Council. Unfortunately, the Assembly cannot make decisions that are mandatory or binding on the members, whereas the Security Council can. The poser is: can the Security Council afford to be democratic? This would mean acceding to the views of the majority, irrespective of the reasonableness, sensitiveness or otherwise of the question for determination.

Understandably, the founders of the UN did not think it wise to trust the maintenance of international peace and security in the hands of every member of the organization, nor subject the matter to the democratic deliberations of the whole body. Besides the necessity of efficient running and prompt decision-making, it was easier to trust global peace and security in the hands of a few allied powers that prevailed against the axis powers in 1945—nations which had proved their military might and share similar political ideologies. That may have been the case then. But the world has moved on since then. The leaders of the axis powers then, Germany, Japan and Italy, are now major players in recent peace and security initiatives. Indeed, Japan and Germany are second only to the United States, with regards to financial contributions to the UN. This goes to show that the dispensation of 1945 is much different from what obtains now. Furthermore, it is unthinkable that the founders of the UN intended for the decisions by the Security Council be reached for purposes other than the genuine maintenance of peace and security in the world. Sadly, this is often the case today. Instead of taking decisions based, primarily, on maintaining global peace and security, “national interests” of members of the Security Council are the principal considerations, with lots of lobbying, arm-twisting and manipulation being employed to attain selfish national goals. Tens of thousands of people could be perishing in a region or country and the Council will not lift a real finger, because the “national interest” of its powerful members is not threatened or affected. This is so even where the disturbing development has been extensively deliberated by the General Assembly.

It is not in dispute that the circumstances of this day are not the same as those prevailing during the formation of the UN. What is not agreed upon is whether this changed circumstances sufficiently necessitates altering the decision-making process of the Security Council. Naturally, leading the pack of the proponents of maintaining the status quo are the current permanent members of the Council. Whatever position may be found agreeable to individual or group intellectual or political leanings, a factor that cannot be disregarded is that the current procedure and process of arriving at decisions in the Council cannot continue. The reason for this is the gross misplacement of priority in Council deliberations by its members. The system must be reformed so as to be transparent. The UN was not founded, ex facie, to protect the “national interests” of certain nations merely, but for the peace and security of every nation of the world. The overly politicization of the decision-making apparatus of the Security Council is unacceptable. It must be open, transparent and made accountable.

]]> Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:04:00 EDT http://Steve04.tigblog.org/post/191997 51.5 -0.116666751.5-0.1166667