The predominance of an ethic of double standards in the United Nations Security Council humanitarian intervention missions : a critical study based on the ethical concepts of mutual aid and equal recognition.
Loading...
Date
2014
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the organ of the United
Nations (UN), which according to the United Nations Charter has been
mandated with the maintenance of peace and security in the whole world.
The UNSC is composed of 5 permanent members in accordance with Chapter
V, Article 23 of the UN Charter. These P5 were not democratically elected
because the UN General Assembly has never been involved in the election of
these P5 members. Instead, the UN General Assembly has been given the
responsibility of electing 6 non-permanent members. From the history of the
formation of the UNSC, I have argued that the members of this organ of the
UN end up promoting their own national self-interests under the guise of
promoting peace and security in the world. The practice of double standards
(being morally hypocritical with regards to one‟s commitment to justice and
fairness) in the UNSC hinges mainly on the rationale of P5 members
pursuing their self-national interests instead of the interests of the whole
world in accordance with the UN Charter.
Also the rationale of having a UNSC whose justification for its existence is
based on the idea of a World War that was fought six decades ago
undermines a democratic ethos as well as any prospect for the UNSC
democratic reforms. The P5 talk about democratic accountability to other
countries and yet they themselves are not accountable to the UN General
Assembly. The idea of a P5 membership that wields vetoing powers makes
the prospects of democratic reforms in the UNSC untenable. The fact that
the UNSC has on several occasion talked about good governance as
synonymous with a democratic government smacks of double standards
because the modus operandi of this organ of the UN does not show any
shred of the existence of democratic practices. Another factor that
exacerbates the practice of double standards in the UNSC is that the
politically cherished values of this organ of the UN are mainly Euro-centric.
The interests of the P5 are usually regional interests, and not the interests of
the whole world. It is a central argument that is raised in this study that the
practice of double standards undermines the ideal of shared moral values
among nations.
A special attention to the practice of double standards in the UNSC is made
with specific reference to the UNSC authorised military interventions in Iraq
and Libya. The UNSC‟s condemnation of Iraq‟s invasion of Kuwait was mainly
motivated by the USA (United States of America) and her Western allies‟ need
for cheap oil. I have demonstrated that this practice of double standards can
be discerned if we make a comparative study on UNSC response towards
Iraq‟s invasion of Iran. The practice of double standards was further
highlighted by examples where other countries such as Israel, South Africa
and Rhodesia invaded sovereign countries whilst the UNSC did not authorise
military interventions against those countries. In the case of Iraq, the
practice of double standards involved lying about the motives of imposing
sanctions and inspecting Iraq‟s weapons capability. The same practice of
double standards by the UNSC led to the UNSC passing a resolution of no
fly-zone under the pretext of protecting civilians and yet NATO and its
sponsored rebels killed more civilians than what Gaddafi government ever
did. The presumption that the UNSC is there to promote peace and security
in the whole world is empirically questionable.
The main argument that was advanced in this study was that the pursuit of
national self-interests among the P5 members of the UNSC is the main
contributory factor to the practice of double standards in its modus
operandi. The practice of double standards in the UNSC makes the prospects
of a new world order something that will remain unrealisable. For this
reason, my critique of double standards was that it has eroded the moral
legitimacy of the UNSC. For this reason, my main critical tools against double
standards were ethical concepts of equal recognition – all countries of the
world should be recognised in terms of their capabilities to contribute to
peace and security in the world and of mutual aid – which is based on the
presumption that all countries of the world should be seen as indispensable
to the promotion of peace and security in the world.
Description
Ph. D. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg 2014.
Keywords
United Nations.--Security Council., War--Moral and ethical aspects., Peace--Moral and ethical aspects., Humanitarian intervention--Iraq., Humanitarian intervention--Libya., Humanitarian intervention--Moral and ethical aspects., Theses--Ethics.