On 24 April 2024, a well-attended conference took place at the United Nations Office in Geneva to commemorate International Day of Multilateralism and Diplomacy for Peace, a tradition that goes back to the adoption by the UN General Assembly of Resolution 73/127, which reaffirms the UN Charter and the purposes and principles of the UN, especially the commitment to settle disputes through peaceful means (Art. 2(3) of the Charter) and the determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war[1].
In the light of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the genocide being perpetrated by Israel in Gaza with the complicity of the United States, Canada, UK, France, Germany and other States, the holding of this conference was particularly relevant. The conference was attended by two dozen Ambassadors, numerous academics and representatives of non-governmental organizations.
I had the opportunity to speak on the subject of “Navigating the present: The Vital Role of International Law in Today’s Global Landscape.” I stressed that the UN Charter is akin to a world constitution, the only rules-based international order that is universally recognized, notwithstanding the fact that some powerful states systematically ignore it. Such disregard of the Charter and of fundamental principles of international law has had a detrimental impact on the authority of the United Nations, whose credibility is in decline since the demise of the Soviet Union and the brazen display of a “winner takes all mindset” by the United States in the spirt of Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History [2].
Unilateralism became the rule after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. The unipolar world enforced submission to the will of the United States. The then-almighty dollar was instrumentalized to control international finance and trade. Dependence on the dollar effectively hollowed out the sovereignty of many states. Multilateralism discretely disappeared.
It did not have to be like that. In the spirit of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the world could have flourished through disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. Civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights could have been promoted worldwide and extreme poverty could have been eliminated. Military-first economies could have been converted into human security economies, and millions of jobs would have been created in all fields of human activity[3]. The funds released by slashing military budgets worldwide would have made the Millennium Development Goals[4] of 2000 and the Sustainable Development Goals[5] of 2015 easily attainable.
This dream of disarmament for development was smashed by President Bill Clinton, who preferred “soft” and hard US power to advance the interests of the military-industrial-financial-media-digital complex, which was also served by academics and ideologues like Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose book The Grand Chessboard[6] reflected the jubilant mood of the self-serving and self-deceiving hegemon.
The world has evolved since the 1990’s and the unipolar fantasies have been gradually dissipating. One can see light at the end of the tunnel, since the days of unilateralism are coming to an end. The crimes of unilateralism, however, have multiplied, accompanied by numerous military interventions and coups d’état throughout of the world.
It seems that the global majority is waking up. BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative and other geopolitical developments prove that a multipolar world order is emerging. Indeed, multilateralism is necessary to sustain this process and ensure that the promises of the UN Charter are realised.
In this context I cited from General Assembly Resolution 73/127, adopted on 12 December 2018 by a recorded vote of 144 in favour, 2 against and no abstentions. This resolution, submitted by the Non-Aligned Movement, declared 24 April “International Day for multilateralism and diplomacy for peace.”
The voting record of States in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council illustrates which countries are in favour of multilateralism and peace, and which countries are against. The only two votes cast against Res. 73/127 were those of the United States and Israel. The self-same two countries were also the only objectors to the adoption of the nearly universal GA Res. 78/7 condemning the illegal US embargo against Cuba. This was the 31st such resolution, and all of them have been violated by the US in total impunity.
GA Resolution 78/202, which condemned unilateral coercive measures (UCMs, falsely referred to as “sanctions”), was adopted by 131 votes in favour and 53 against. Here it was not only the US and Israel who voted against, but also many European countries and their vassals who also participate in this illegal practice of imposing UCMs that by now have a long history of causing suffering and death in numerous targeted countries. Indeed, UCMs demonstrably kill. On 25 March 2024 these issues were extensively discussed at an Arria Formula Meeting at the Security Council[7], about which I already reported in Counterpunch.[8]
Chapter 8 of my book The Human Rights Industry[9] is devoted entirely to an analysis of the voting record of States, and it proves that some countries have not abandoned their animus dominandi, their preference to bully, give orders, impose UCMs, and their refusal to settle disputes by peaceful means.
In my presentation I emphasized that the most urgent task of the United Nations is to facilitate ceasefires and peace negotiations in a spirit of compromise. Secretary General Antonio Guterres and High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk agree that prevention is better than cure, and that it is the task of United Nations agencies to make constructive proposals to solve grievances before they degenerate into war. It is crucial to break the vicious circle of crime and reprisal and devise means of coexistence and reconciliation.
I am persuaded that unless our leaders through their provocations and escalations end up causing World War III — as our ancestors stumbled into World Wars I and II — there will be some kind of settlement of the on-going armed conflicts. There will be a post-war period in Ukraine, Israel, Sudan, Congo, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Niger, the Sahel, Syria, Yemen, and other countries at war. We must prepare for this post-war period remembering the words of the Constitution of UNESCO That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed”[10].
Simply put – cooperation among multiple players on the basis of sovereign equality. It entails adherence to a common political project based on the respect of a shared system of norms and values. Multilateralism is based on founding principles such as consultation, inclusion and solidarity. It requires goodwill, good faith and a commitment to respect and enforce legal rules. When legal rules are violated with impunity, when judgments and rulings of the International Court of Justice are ignored, when Security Council and General Assembly resolutions are not implemented, the whole system suffers. There is too much lip service for the concept of the rule of law, but it is being eroded domestically and internationally.
It sounds like a platitude, but it is obvious that global problems require global solutions, which cannot be imposed by one country but must be negotiated. The world urgently needs solutions for climate, food, energy and financial problems. We must be ready to address pandemics and natural disasters, including an asteroid impacting on Earth. We are all in this boat together. It is the function of diplomacy to facilitate solutions through multilateral give-and-take, through common sense compromises that may render a win-win arrangement.
The 25 Zayas Principles of International Order serve peace and security. They reflect the progressive development of international law as created and applied by the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and propose a vision of a peaceful, democratic and equitable international order based on the cooperation of all stakeholders – both States and non-State actors, sovereign countries, inter-governmental organizations, transnational enterprises, peoples and minorities striving for self-determination, indigenous peoples, religious institutions and civil society.
These guiding principles should be understood in a holistic way, rejecting any kind of “fragmentation” of international law into “stand-alone” legal regimes in competition with each other. The authority and credibility of the system of international law depends on its internal coherence and on rules of interpretation that recognize a logical hierarchy as well as a horizontal mutual reinforcement. Admittedly, these standards encompass not only hard law but also soft law and general notions of ethics and justice. Like Virginia Dandan’s Draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity,[11] the UN Declaration on the Right of Indigenous Peoples,[12] the Commission on Human Right’s Declaration on the illegality of forced population transfers,[13] and John Ruggie’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,[14] the Zayas principles on international order are not exhaustive and are intended to serve as useful criteria or standards to evaluate and better understand the complexities of the evolving international order. One should also keep this caveat in mind: Principles and norms are not self-executing. Indeed, as the Bible has not resolved the problem of sin, and the UN Charter has not ended aggressive war and exploitation, these principles shall not eo ipso guarantee a democratic and equitable international order in the 21st century. Realistically speaking, even if all of these principles and declarations one day were to become UN treaties, they would still need political will, good faith, and an effective enforcement mechanism in order to make a difference.
The Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter stipulate that the principal goal of the Organization is the promotion and maintenance of peace. This entails the prevention of local, regional and international conflict, and in case of armed conflict, the deployment of effective measures aimed at peace-making, reconstruction and reconciliation. The production and stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a continuing threat against peace.
Alfred de Zayas is a law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18.
Source: CounterPunch