Frieden und Sicherheit – der Kernauftrag der Vereinten Nationen

Die Mitgliedsländer der Vereinten Nationen haben sich auf einen „Pakt für die Zukunft“ geeinigt. Der Pakt bekräftigt, dass gemäß den Verpflichtungen des internationalen Rechts, einschließlich der VN-Charta, ihrem Auftrag und ihren Grundsätzen gehandelt wird. Doch die Sprache zur VN-Charta bleibt im Allgemeinen. Die Gleichstellung der Bestimmungen der Charta mit den Bestimmungen von internationalen Verträgen ist ungefähr so, als wenn man eine nationale Verfassung den nationalen Gesetzen gleichstellt. Aber die Bestimmungen der Verfassung geben die Leitlinien für Gesetze und politisches Handeln vor. Ähnlich ist es, oder müsste es, mit der VN-Charta und internationalen Verträgen und Konventionen sein.

Die VN-Charta erkennt an, dass es Konflikte und militärische und gewaltsame Bedrohungen gibt. Im Kapitel VI werden die Schritte beschrieben, die vom Sicherheitsrat gegangen werden müssen im Falle einer Bedrohung des internationalen Friedens. Dabei ist es nicht die Aufgabe des Rates den Konflikt zu vermeiden oder zu beenden, sondern es ist seine Aufgabe, Schritte zu identifizieren, die zu einer friedlichen Beilegung des Konfliktes durch die Konfliktparteien führen. Die Vorschläge des Rates sind bindend für die Konfliktparteien und ihre Unterstützer wie auch für alle anderen Mitgliedsländer (Art. 25). Im Falle, dass ein Mitglied des Rates Konfliktpartei ist, kann sein Vertreter nicht an der Abstimmung des Rates teilnehmen (Art. 27.3). Mit anderen Worten, hätten die Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrates sich entschieden, den Angriff Russlands auf die Ukraine nach Kapitel VI zu behandeln, hätte Russland kein Veto einlegen können.

Im Konflikt zwischen Israel und der Hamas gibt es in der VN-Charta klare Bestimmungen. Laut Art. 51 hat jedes Mitgliedsland das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung, und jedes Volk das Recht auf Selbstbestimmung (Art. 1.2). Aber das Recht auf Selbstverteidigung besteht nur solange wie der Sicherheitsrat keinen Beschluss gefasst hat wie der Konflikt beendet werden kann. Spätestens seit dem einstimmigen Beschluss 2735 des Rates vom 10. Juni 2024, hätte Israel und die Hamas einen Waffenstillstand vereinbaren müssen.

Die Gründe für die Nichtbeachtung von Beschlüssen des Sicherheitsrates sind vielschichtig. Hier nur einige Hinweise darauf, wie die Autorität der Vereinten Nationen gestärkt werden könnte. Dass sie gestärkt werden muss, wird in der heutigen, multipolaren Welt eigentlich nicht bezweifelt. Nur alle Großmächte verhalten sich abwartend, denn niemand will in der Zurückstellung von nationalen Interessen voreilig sein. Russland ist sogar bereit noch weiter zu gehen, und nationales Interesse dem allgemeinen internationalen und globalen Interesse eine höher rangige Bedeutung zu geben. Dies widerspricht den Bestimmungen der VN-Charta. Der Generalsekretär und die Generalversammlung sind jetzt gefordert, den grundsätzlichen Dissens der von Russland angeführten Allianz von 15 Mitgliedsstaaten zu überwinden.

Dazu müssen wir eine internationale Kultur des politischen Kompromisses wieder beleben. Wir haben zwar die Ambition, win-win Lösungen zu finden, nur, wie sähen diese im Falle des Konflikts zwischen Russland und Ukraine, zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern aus? Nicht nur der Sicherheitsrat, sondern andere Gremien sind hier gefordert, durch eine tiefgreifende Analyse die Wurzeln der Konflikte freizulegen, um dann einen Verhandlungsprozess der Konfliktparteien zu ermöglichen. Die Konfliktursachen müsen Schritt für Schritt mit Geduld und Ausdauer beseitigt werden. Dabei muss der Sicherheitsrat darüber wachen, dass alle Parteien gleichbehandelt werden. Denn es gibt nur einen Weg zum internationalen Frieden: die Interessen aller Beteiligten sind gleichwertig zu beachten und zu behandeln.

Was in der heutigen Politik besonders fehlt, ist die in der VN-Carta beschriebene Toleranz und der Respekt für die historisch gewachsene Andersartigkeit der Länder. Nicht nur die Regierenden, sondern auch die Bürger in allen Ländern folgen unterschiedlichen Grundvorstellungen. Die Herausforderung ist, diese zu achten, und trotzdem zum gemeinsamen Handeln zu finden.

Da die UNO nach wie vor für die Mehrzahl der Länder attraktiv ist, sollten wir dies nutzen, um das System der Vereinten Nationen neu aufzustellen.  Der Pakt für die Zukunft kann ein wichtiger Schritt in diese Richtung sein, aber noch wichtiger wäre die Einberufung einer Generalkonferenz nach Art. 109 der Charta. Aber dazu muss der oben genannte Dissens erst einmal auf- und abgearbeitet werden.

Background to DWB Statement

Dimensions of peace and peaceful conflict resolution

The core purpose of the UN is to „save future generations from the scourge of war“. The founders of the UN agreed in 1945 that all people should live without want, without fear and in larger freedom. Not all 50 founding members were on the same page how the post WW2 world order should be governed to reach these goals. But the main initiators President Roosevelt and his successor President Truman had no doubts that in the interest of international peace and stability national interests  had to be curbed. President Stalin saw this quite differently, and insisted on the veto, as did the Republican senators in the US delegation to the San Francisco conference.

But all founding members agreed that there are and will be international conflicts. All expressed their political will, that such conflicts should be settled peacefully.  They gave the security council the mandate to watch over the maintenance of international peace, and within the council they assigned a special responsibility to the P5. In the UN Charter the outlined sequence of steps for securing peace begins with chapter VI, which includes a provision for the suspension of veto power (art 27.3) and only foresaw collective actions, such as sanctions and military intervention, in chapter VII.

Embedded in the UN Charter are compromises which should have been reviewed and assessed of their continuing validity. That was never done. Hence, by now 193 countries are members of the UN and subscribed to a varying degree to the notion that international peace is a collective responsibility, which supercedes national interests and transcends the boundaries of political systems.

Trust in the multilateral system and attitudinal change

Ever since 1945 there have been wars around the world. The member states and the UN secretariat responded to these violations of the UN Charter pragmatically with peace-making and peace-keeping operations. But even these are coming under severe criticism today and there is a noticeable political shift towards discontinuing these UN operations.

    Whether a revamped Peace-Building Commission will be able to reverse this trend and come up with concepts better suited to end today’s brutal military operations in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar to name only a few examples, remains to be seen.

    What is most notable is the fact, that with the exception of the war in Gaza, the Security Council did not fulfil its mandate. And even with regard to Gaza, the UN member states have not been able to initiate a process for the Government of Israel and the political leadership of the Palestinian people to negotiate a peaceful solution. These failures have contributed to erode the trust into the UN as the center of global multilateralism.

    To regain trust and to overcome the compromises of 1945 there has to be a noticeable attitudinal change of member states. If one considers the UN as a club of nation states with its statute and rules, clearly the UN management like the management of any other club has to ensure that all members respect the statute and the rules, and give appropriate recommendations to the UN bodies for their action according to the UN Charter. Violations need to be sanctioned, but more importantly, violation has to be ended and the recurrence of violations need to be avoided.

    Legally all members have one vote, but the P5 have been granted privileges. Of the original 5 privileged members, three remain as shaping today’s world order, the USA, China and Russia. As long as these three big powers cannot come together in managing international peace, irrespective of their competition in the economic and cultural domains, and the difference in their national governance system, there are only two options to rectify the situation: either abolish the role and function of privileged members, and let majority voting determine the decisions of the UN bodies, or enact a stricter control over the exercise of privileges by the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.

    Colonial rule has ended some 50+ years ago. Almost all newly independent countries joined the UN. Today a second generation is now leading these countries, often educated in the countries which led the world during the second half of the 20th century. Often there is talk about the multipolar world of today. But so far, we have failed to define what this would mean in practical terms. Consequently, confrontations and rivalry prevail, instead of cooperation and dialogue, weakening multilateralism.

    Diplomats and politicians in all countries need to hone their skills and competency to articulate their national interests in such a way that they can lead to cooperation. While a General Conference according to art. 109 is highly desirable, it clearly will need careful preparation by the UN secretariat.

    Global governance

    Multilateralism is built on voluntary commitments by member states. Such commitments are enacted within the political authority of nation states. Increasingly humanity faces challenges which are larger than any country on its own can addressed successfully. There is no political system that fits all countries. Too often in the past, one or the other superpower has attempted to fight the odds, but failed. In the 1990s, the secretary-general of the UN attempted to lead an international process of developing a blueprint for the global future through a series of international conferences culminating in the Millennium Summt in September 2000. But the UN as an organisation has not the authority of a national government. It also lacks the financial resources to implement the global agenda adopted by member states. The secretary-general  only has the moral authority to keep members on the straight and narrow, and highlight good practices for replication by others.

      The world of 2024 is different from the world in 1945. Hence the global governance system as designed in the UN Charter needs to be amended, in two respects: reenforce the peace mandate of the UN, and reform the institutional set up to enhance the legitimacy of UN bodies.

      Member states are accountable to their populations through national policies and legislation, but they also hold a responsibility and are ultimately accountable to humanity for a global system that can ensure that there is a consensus on what are good practices and how resources can be mobilised to apply these experiences everywhere.

      Raising 4 trillion for the SDGs

      By now it is quite apparent that there is no consensus on how to reach the SDGs and consequently how to mobilise the needed financial and human resources to do so. It is, however, clear that only a combination of public and private initiatives and resources will move us towards attaining the SDGs. New approaches for international cooperation are required to stimulate such progress and economic growth. For instance, it is not the wheat deliveries from Ukraine and Russia which will eradicate hunger and poverty in African countries. It is research and multiplication of high-yielding varieties of indigenous millet and sorghum which will be in demand. Such research has to be carried out close to the producers, i.e. African farmers and in collaboration with them.

      Development cooperation bilaterally and multilaterally has produced many good examples. They need to be scaled up and jointly funded from a multitude of soruces.

      Fighting bias and seeking truth

      A big stumbling block for cooperation, nationally and internationally, is today’s social communications, which deny facts in pursuit of individualistic or clientelistic interests. Established media are fighting against these trends, but we still have not found a collective response to the distortion of facts and the clash between unreconcilable opinions and views. We need to get to a situation where facts are facts, and what do about it is a matter of views and opinions. However, if we cannot define the common good, we shall not be able to solve this problem.

      In films and novels violence can lead to quick desired results, in real life it does not. Diplomatic skills are in demand to stay engaged and find solutions step by step.

      Alliances across regional and systemic boundaries and art. 109

      It is often said that smaller multilateral groupings, unions and alliances undercut the UN. Chapter VIII of the Charter speaks a different language. Hence perceptions have to be changed, and smaller groups of member states be used as catalysts for a global consensus. In the recent past, many such organisations have confirmed their willingness to build the emerging world order on the basis of the UN Charter. We now need to move on to a debate, how and with which time table this can be discussed and concrete steps can be agreed to by all member states. The UN Charter foresees for such a decision-taking body the general conference according to art. 109.

      Recognizing achievements and solving problems

      Whether a glass is half full or half empty, depends often on the perspective chosen. With regard to international relations, the global order and global governance many hold the view today that the glass is half empty and being drained. Without belittling the terrible crises we have face, such a negative assessment is not built on global evidence. Progress is being made at many fronts, albeit not sufficient to become the dominant feature. The widespread view that good news are no news, only confirms that it is a very demanding task to present achievements so that they are inspiring to others and indeed for this reason noteworthy. DWB members stand ready to assist to change this situation.

      Letter to the President of the UN General Assembly

      on the occasion of Sustainability Week in New York from 15 – 19 April 2024

      Your Excellency,

      As a former UN staff member I participate in an informal  Peacemaking Reflection Group (PRG), which follows from our respective locations and situations the work of the UN. Members of the Group  welcome and would like to thank you for convening the first-ever Sustainability Week in your capacity as President of the General Assembly. But I would also like to submit a few thoughts, in the hope that you may find them constructive and worth taking into account in your subsequent work.

      As members of the UN, governments committed to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Consequently world leaders made it quite clear In the Agenda 2030 , that they were “… determined to foster peaceful, just and inclusive societies which are free from fear and violence. There can be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development.”  But it appears that the current GA is losing this focus on and for the primary purpose of the UN.

      Of course, even today the vast majority of people fortunately live in peaceful countries. And clearly the GA has to be responding to the needs of this majority. But the current wars raging in a few countries, cripple the majority in finding the needed public and private investments for the transformation to a sustainable economy. Raised expenditures in armaments reduce public resources to be invested in touristic attractions, they restrict investments in necessary infrastructures and carbon-free transport systems. Hence the GA has to continue to be focused on peace when dealing with sustainability issues. War and violence block tourism. All UN members have UNESCO certified World Heritage sites, but many are inaccessible, because of wars and local armed fighting. Violent political confrontation hinders people from exploring other countries and their cultures. It limits curiosity and the desire to understand others. Yet, such understand is, as we know, necessary to exercise tolerance, which the UN Charter stipulates as an indispensable value of political international politics.

                    Statistics on international financial transactions show that today the volume of remittances from international migrants to their families back home is higher than global direct foreign investments. International finance has to manage this reality. Adjustments are needed to meet priority needs of the people in all countries. Overburdening debts need to be rescheduled or forgiven in order to make room for new and adjusted lending. New financial resources should address the needs of young people entering the labour market, and they should be used to preserve ecosystems and mitigate adverse living conditions due to climate change.

                    In its recently published annual report the WMO showed that while 2023 was the hottest year on record, it also saw the highest level of investments in renewable energy resources; yet the volume needs to be increased tenfold, in order to meet the goals of the Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement. Clearly financial investments need to be redirected in to this transformation.

      In my view, which is shared by my colleagues from the PRG, there can be no sustainable development without investing in international and national peace. We therefore would like to urge the  GA to make these linkages much more visible to the global public, and concern itself with how such sustainable peace can be achieved. Somewhere along the path there could be a process of international truth and reconciliation among member states. There could be a worldwide programme of peace education to be monitored by the UN Resident Coordinator system and other national UN focal points. The UN system could develop a generic educational package, which then can be tailor-made to suit national conditions.

      We are convinced that the GA needs to recommit to the peace mandate of the UN Charter in order to open new and sustainable ways of international cooperation in the sectors of tourism, finance, energy, infrastructure and transport. In fact, this applies to all the parts of the Agenda 2030, and , of course, such recommitment is necessary to help people suffering from war and violence return to peaceful living conditions. We also believe that the work of UN entities and the different processes in preparation of the SOTF need to be more closely woven together to reinforce its global impact.

      While this letter is sent only in my name, the drafting has greatly benefitted from inputs of several PRG colleagues. More on this group can be found under www.foggs.org/prg.

      Yours sincerely,

      Dr. Kerstin Leitner, Former UN Resident Coordinator in China, now retired in Berlin/Germany

      Der UNDP Bericht 2023/24 zum Stand der menschlichen Entwicklung

      Am 19. März stellte der Administrator von UNDP, Achim Steiner, den diesjährigen Bericht zusammen mit der Ministerin für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, Svenja Schulze, und dem Vorsitzenden der DGVN, Ekkehard Griep, in einer Pressekonferenz in Berlin vor.

      Der Bericht ist der politischen und gesellschaftlichen Polarisierung in unserer heutigen Welt gewidmet, und stellt sich zur Aufgabe, einmal durchzudenken, wie diese Polarisierung mit all ihren negativen Folgen für Frieden und Wohlergehen überwunden werden kann.

      Ausgehend von einer Analyse des Ist-Zustandes (Kapitel 1 und 2), der ja keineswegs statisch, sondern sehr dynamisch ist, diskutieren die Autoren, wie man von der Konfrontation zu einem Modus der Kooperation kommen kann. Als Treiber eines solchen Wandels sehen sie die Beachtung und Bewahrung der globalen Allgemeingüter an, und ergänzen diese um planetarische Allgemeingüter (Klima, Ökosysteme, Biodiversität), die im Erdzeitalter des Anthropozäns zunehmend an Bedeutung für die menschliche Entwicklung gewinnen (Kapitel 3). Zu Recht wird darauf hingewiesen, dass selbst bei abnehmender Globalisierung und wirtschaftlicher Entflechtung die globale Interdependenz über nationale Grenzen hinweg bestehen bleiben wird, weil es globale Herausforderungen gibt, die nur multilateral gemeistert werden können.

      Mit vielen Graphiken und an Hand von vielen Beispielen, festgehalten in spotlights, zeigt der Bericht die vielfältigen Aspekte, was und wie die internationale Interdependenz falsch gemanagt wurde in den vergangenen Dekaden (vor allem nach 1989). Aber er weicht einer Frage aus, nämlich, wie und seit wann entstand diese Polarisierung? Warum bestimmt die Gewalt der realen oder der angeblichen underdogs das internationale und nationale Geschehen, wirtschaftlich, kulturell und politisch? Wie war es möglich, dass die Russische Föderation sich politisch abwandte vom bestehenden geopolitischen System und seinen eigenen, gewalttätigen Weg gegangen ist, ohne dass der Rest der Staatengemeinschaft dieser Entwicklung Einhalt gebieten konnte? Wie kam es zu der Verunsicherung der russischen Führung bis hin zur gefühlten russischen Minderwertigkeit und in den USA zu der vorherrschenden Vorstellung, eine hegemoniale Macht zu sein? Der Bericht diskutiert ausführlich, welches Verhalten notwendig ist, um eine für alle gewinnbringende Kooperation zu gestalten. Nur wie kommen wir dahin? Es ist zu fürchten, dass ohne eine selbstkritische Analyse der Führungen der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft, wie es zu diesen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Fehlentwicklungen gekommen ist, kein wirkliches Umdenken erreicht werden kann.

      In diesem Zusammenhang stellt sich die Frage nach der Rolle der Vereinten Nationen. In einem spotlight (S 197) “Geopolitics and the early history of the United Nations: Friend or foe?” wird dieser Frage nachgegangen. Aber die grundsätzliche Frage, was hätten die Vereinten Nationen, vor allem ihre Mitglieder, anders machen können, wird nicht gestellt. Es bleibt bei der Konstatierung des Reformbedarfs der Organisation.

      Der Bericht mit über 300 Seiten ist sehr reichhaltig. Man wird ihn kaum von Beginn bis zum Ende durchlesen, obwohl die Texte gut verständlich geschrieben sind. Der statistische Anhang, wie immer, umfangreich, und nicht leicht zu überschauen. Insgesamt, ein Bericht, der sich wohltuend von den gängigen Kassandrarufen abhebt, und sicherlich eines erreichen kann: zum Nachdenken anregen.

      Summit of the Future- Zero draft pact

      I have taken a look at the Zero draft, which was presented on 29 January 2024 by the two co-facilitators Germany and Namibia. The text of the Zero draft can be found on the UN website. Here are my comments on this draft:

      Comments on the Chapeau:

      This declaration is formulated in the context of the UN and represents a pact between and among member states. Tt therefore should lay the emphasis on what the UN Charter states as the primary purpose of the organisation: “to save future generations from the scourge of war”. Consequently “peace and security” should precede “sustainable development and financing for development”, as peace is a conditio sine qua non for sustainable development. Reductions in armaments will greatly enhance the mobilisation of needed financing for development. Similarly in para 7, the order should be reversed to read “peace and security, human rights, development”. In para 8 it should be added that member states commit to the peaceful settlement of conflicts.

      Para 9 should state that human rights are the underpinning of everything the UN system stands for, recognizing that this is accepted by all states which have joined the UN and signed the UDHR and/or the 2 covenants. If specific groups like women and girls are singled out, then this special mention should be justified. This pact should recommit all member states to the universal applicability of human rights, while leaving room for changes in the handling of the application and the international response in cases of violations of these rights. The UNHCHR has recently taken some initiatives in this direction and these should be endorsed.

      The current para 13 on “peace and security” is too short and does not respond to the demands of “properly managing” current risks to peace and security. The draft lacks a clear indication when and how collective security should occur at the regional, and when and how it should be dealt with at the global level. Provisions and principles under Chapter VI are to be mentioned here!

      Sustainable peace demands a culture of peace at the national, the regional and the global level. Peace education is indispensable for creating, maintaining and strengthening such a peace culture, but peace education is not even mentioned in the Zero draft. The opportunity was missed to show how national educational programmes could benefit from international cooperation at the multilateral (UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP) level and at the bilateral level, with state and non-state actors. For such peace education to produce the desired result, it has to reach all member states, most likely through succeeding international and national programmes for generations to come. UNESCO’s outstanding work in this regard should be endorsed and reinforced.

      Under the heading of “peace and security” also falls the whole complex of disarmament and regulations for the trade of weapons, and for which priorities for the coming years should be outlined. In this context, it should be mentioned that Art. 26 was never enacted in full. This pact should say what member states wish to do with this provision of the UN Charter. Implement it, scrap it, or modify it?

      Lastly, in this chapter the question of guaranteeing global peace and security through the monitoring of the Security Council and its resolutions has to be raised. The options for possible reforms have to be discussed and the pact should show what the expectations of member states are with regard to the actions by the Security Council as well as their commitment to adhere to and enforce the Council’s decisions.

      Comments on individual chapters:

      As regards the aspects of financing for development (para 11), the pact should express the expectations for ministers of finance and the IFI to reform the global financial architecture.

      In para 12 it should be mentioned that the UN Charter has no provisions for the protection of our planet’s natural resource base. Member states should express how they wish to close this gap. Continue ad hoc as at present, or create a global Resilience Council, which will possibly upgrade ECOSOC and endow it with similar authority as the Security Council.

      Within this chapeau, para 14 on science, technology, innovation and digital cooperation lacks very essential elements. For instance, scientific knowledge informs a great many economic and political decisions. Sometimes they are ignored by those in decision-making positions, often to the detriment of great many people. There has to be a better balance achieved between apllying scientific knowledge and leaving it aside to serve particular interests. Technologies and digital system are tools which can be used to enhance human well-being or destroy it. Cyber criminality has raised its ugly head. Again, we need to reach consensus on how to harness the opportunities, and how to control the threats, e.g. hacker attacks on civilian institutions like hospitals. Today most human suffering is caused by human interventions, hence we need to harness science, technology and digitalisation in such as way that they allow for cooperation and finding innovative solutions to problems which heretofore remained unsolved. Details and good practices and how these could be globally mainstreamed should be elaborated in the subsequent chapter.

      In para 17 transforming global governance: rather than to formulate a wishlist of what member states aspire to, a set of guiding questions/principles need to be formulated in order to effectively transform the global peace and security architecture, economic globalisation and protection of the planet’s environmental resources. It needs to be emphasized that sustainable solutions can only be achieved in close collaboration with other UN organisations and multilateral actors beyond the UN and through bilateral cooperation between state and non-state actors. Principal questions would be: Can  the current arrangements for peace/security remain in place? Shall the present system continue, where bigger nations have a greater say and room to act than the majority of middle-sized and small nations? Is the P5 arrangement still valid? If so, how should it operate? Should international conventions and treaties be binding for all, once a large majority of countries have signed/ratified? How to make economic globalisation work without creating huge social and economic inequality? How to balance national and common interests? Only if the members of the UN can reach agreements in response to these questions/principles will we be able to effectively transform global governance.

      As a follow up to the SOTF there has to be a general conference under art. 109 envisaged. Preferably by 2030 with the aim of having a revamped UN by 2045.

      Lastly, the Chapeau clearly sets the stage what follows. But there are many redundant formulations in each chapter. The subsequent chapters should be focussed on what appears doable at the present time and during the years until 2030 with an outlook which elements still await further discussion and agreement.

      Comments on subsequent chapters:

      We recommend to reverse the order as follows:

      1. Peace and Security
      2. Sustainable Development and Financing
      3. Science, technology…..
      4. Youth and future generations
      5. Transforming global governance

      In the chapter “Peace and security” the difference between a global peace and a global security architecture needs to be spelled out. The peace architecture embraces the whole society, the security architecture is built on the strength of armed forces and the concept of deference. Because the UN was and is in fact not in charge of the global security architecture, as this was left to nation states and their alliances, we have seen at all times since 1945 wars and armed conflicts. The tool box of the Charter, namely art. 26 was never fully used, and UN peace keeping operations were not foreseen in the Charter, but were developed pragmatically by the organisation. Prevention, mediation and peacebuilding have not yet reached the level of sustainable results and the chapter should make concrete proposals how the nexus between enforcement action, political efforts and other non-military approaches (para 74) could be improved. While the overall aim is to make wars and armed conflicts redundant, they will continue to occur. Hence the need to protect civilians and to enforce such protection.

      The two paras 76-77 on counter-terrorism are not articulating a clear guide on how the member states under the umbrella of the UN want to avoid terrorism. Addressing “drivers and enablers of terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism” cannot be done in a “balanced manner”. A thorough and rigorous analysis is required as is decisive action against terrorist threats. Human rights protect against the discrimination because of religious beliefs. They do not protect violence committed in the name of religion. Within the UN, especially its judicial courts are in charge of addressing terrorist crimes.

      In the chapter on “Sustainable development….” we propose

      • to include in para 29 estimates of the volume of resources required in order to implement international conventions,
      • in para 30 to give priority attention to the cleanup of oceans from plastics pollution and the careful management of sea-bed mining, reaffirming the authority of UNCLOS,
      • in para 32 to appeal to the two biggest emitters of CO2 to accelerate their emission reductions in order to give smaller countries a partial breathing space with their reduction plans, and to combine this with para 36,
      • para 39 is too vague and should include clear demands on the IFIs and regional development banks,
      • in para 40 welcome the global 15% tax on all multinational corporations and urge speedy implementation by all member states.

      The chapter on “science, technology, innovation and digital cooperation has to be recast in order to capture

      • the opportunities and threats,
      • and how to manage both.

      Furthermore the chapter has

      • to highlight implications for peace and security and the possible involvement of the Security Council,
      • to reference the multilateral organisations which are in charge of various aspects in this wide field.

      The chapter “Youth and future generations” lacks an elaboration why mobilising today’s youth is important and why decisions today need to be thought through from the effects they have on the life of future generations.

      Finally in the chapter “Transforming global governance” we propose the following modifications:

      The chapter needs to start with the obvious: all member states are equal in their rights and voting, and decisions are made preferably by consensus. However, majority votes are permissible and when taken by a specific majority in the GA, e.g. by a 3/4 majority, they should be regarded as binding.

      The chapter should present all envisaged changes to various bodies of the UN under this aspect “equal rights and equal obligations”. If some members have privileges, then they also should have greater obligations to strengthen the peace mandate of the UN. The emphasis in this chapter should be on enforcement mechanisms, always starting from the premise that member states voluntarily will implement decisions taken by UN bodies.

      While this pact will primarily define the building blocks which need to be put in place, the SOTF should be concluding with the agreement that a general conference (art. 109) will be convened within the next five years, to formally amend the UN Charter and organisation, which will render it more effective in the coming years.

      Peace in the 21st Century

      1. We live in a time of fear, frustration and anger. A sharp contrast to the post WW2 world until about 2015.
      2. We live in a world of global challenges like climate change, ever growing migration of people across borders and continents, which can only be successfully met, if and when countries, or better national governments of countries, pull together.
      3. The distinction between rich, developed and poor developing countries can no longer guide international relations. We are all sitting in the same boat. For instance, phasing out fossil fuels can only be accomplished, if producers and consumers work together on a common global strategy. A small step in this direction is the forming of a climate club, led by Germany and Chile, and which 35 countries have joined.
      4. Another global challenge is illegal international migration. This can only be overcome, if countries of origin and receiving countries enter into a contractual arrangement to allow a certain number of migrants to relocate legally, as was recently done for 5000 agricultural workers between Malawi – Israel.
      5. Regrettably Russia has embarked on a retrograde course of policies and is pursuing with military force its nationalistic ambition, i.e. to restore the Russian Empire. As it does so, it wishes to lead the way into a new world order, which basically means a world without US dominance. Russia does not even pay any longer any attention to what the UN says and does, except to sometimes oppose it. How to combine Russia’s ambition to lead the way into a new world order, with a responsible and less antagonistic attitude is at this moment not visible.
      6. The retreat from global responsibilities by the US, has left the international system of peace and stability without effective oversight and control. The UN cannot fill the void as a reform of the security council is long overdue, and peace-keeping forces are currently being reduced, and new ways are not being explored. There don’t seem to be any champion for strengthening the authority of the UN and to revitalize its primary mandate for international peace and stability.
      7. China is preoccupied with its own internal problems, and takes a rather standoffish attitude towards international problems. Europe and the US are still seeking a newly defined role, whereby Europe is more globally oriented than the US political establishment, but is weary of its colonial past and perceived neo-colonialism. African, Asian, Arab and Latin American countries are not really stepping up to the plate, although several recent peace initiatives by African and Arab cuntries are welcome signs of a greater engagement and selective actions.
      8. Religious fundamentalism is on the rise in many countries. And even in countries like Iran, where a large part of the urban population is openly opposing the ruling religious leaders, change is not in the offing.
      9. What do all these threats and trends mean for building a peace architecture? To come out of the dismal state of international affairs four basic elements need to be put in place:
      10. a. Create a new and hopeful narrative for our times. Work on the basis of the letter and spirit of the UN charter. Go back to a world without fear, without want, and in freedom.
      11. b. Make conflicting parties talk to each other so that eventually they  reach agreements step by step observing the principles of the UN Charter and restoring in people the hope for a better future. Help overcome perceptions and biases and make parties listen to each other. The UN needs to step up its work in this field.
      12. c. No agreement will cover all eventualities. We need to introduce human values like integrity, honesty, decency in order to fill the gaps.
      13. d. Try out new institutional and organisational arrangements to address the drivers for conflict, i.e. social inequality, double standards when applying the rule of law, and excessive power grab by individuals and small groups, which use populist slogans and an authoritarian style of governing.
      14. Once these elements take hold in daily politics a global peace architecture can be built as scoped earlier. (see my blog of 6 July 2023.

      An-Enhanced-Role-for-the-UN-in-Peace-and-Human-Security-Sept2023

      http://kerstinleitner.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/PRG-Booklet-on-An-Enhanced-Role-for-the-UN-in-Peace-and-Human-Security-Final10Sept2023_FOGGS-Papers-2023.pdf

      In this booklet is a series of articles by former UN civil servants, including one from me under the title „Investing in Security does not Guarantee Peace – The Need for a Peace Architecture“.

      Scoping a Peace architecture

      Creating a Common Peace Architecture in and among countries

      1. Why a peace architecture is necessary

      We live in a time, where the aspiration of eliminating the “scourge of war”, which was the leading idea of the UN Charter adopted in 1945, is constantly under attack. The peace architecture of the UN Charter became the foundation of the UN system, but the system was not sufficiently further developed to respond adequately to many other changes, such as decolonisation, end of the cold war, economic globalisation and digitalisation. There were add-ons to the system but no rigorous assessment and political and institutional changes which allowed the system to perform at a level, that would guarantee international peace and stability. As a result, we seem to be faced with a global pandemic of violence. Fighting a pandemic successfully demands containment and vaccinations, like in the case of any other disease. The pandemic of violence needs as containment a domestic and international peace architecture, which is robust enough to withstand military and armed conflict resolution, and the general public needs to be “vaccinated” against violence through civic education.

      Some promote deterrence as the path to avoiding war. However, peace and security are inherently contradictory: one is built on trust, the other on mistrust. A security architecture also knows some elements of trust, but only among like-minded political leaders. A peace architecture also knows some elements of mistrust, but politicians committed to peace will work to overcome any existing mistrust. Lasting peace requires acknowledging conflicts and utilizing political and legal processes to find mutually acceptable solutions. Pursuing security through deterrence fuels arms races, draining resources from pressing challenges like climate change, inequality, poverty and hunger. Fundamentally, we need peace to realize the Sustainable Development Goals. SDG 16 aspires to „peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, access to justice for all, and effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.“

      A peace architecture and culture are necessary, because political leaders and agreed political arrangements have repeatedly failed us.[1] Most recently in Ukraine and Sudan. In particular, the UN Security Council has not succeeded in being the stalwart of international peace and stability. While we need institutional reform of the multilateral institutions, this will not suffice. A culture of peace needs to be defined, established, and nurtured from early on in education, as well as in government and parliamentary institutions, as UNESCO has done for many years with its Culture of Peace programme. But as so often with UN programmes, their outreach is limited, and they cannot grow into a worldwide binding policy for all member states.

      The New Agenda for Peace by the Secretary-General, while global in its intention, it will remain short-sighted and short-lived, if it did not include a vision for cultivating a culture of peace throughout society in all member states. This New Agenda for Peace will fail, if it does not provide an outline for well-developed political and legal mechanisms in each country, and for the peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Articles 33 through 38 need to be activated, and the New Agenda for Peace should show how it can be done. There will be a lot of controversy and confusing debates around such proposals, but the UN secretary-general and UN staff cannot shy away from such controversy,as they are presently doing. The current silence of the UN secretary-general regarding a possible way forward to resolve the Ukraine and the Sudan conflicts in line with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter, is a severe breach of the UN Charter and a neglect of his mandate.

      Multilateral initiatives do not preclude peace initiatives by individual member states, but the UN secretary-general needs to be seen as monitoring these and undertaking efforts to bring any of these initiatives in line with the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. There are not always clear solutions in the offing, hence a careful assessment of which compromises are not violating UN Charter principles is a demanding task for the UN secretariat, and possibly the International Court of Justice.


      [1] A very good description of such inadequate adjustments can be found in Paul Kennedy “The Parliament of Man. The Past, Present and Future of the United Nations”, 2006

      2. The differences between a peace architecture and a security architecture

      As earlier mentioned, security in peace times often takes the form of deterrence. But instead to deter the opponent from using violence, it reinforces mistrust and then leads to increased investments in armaments and technologically new weaponry rather than to grow the commitment to collaborate on common issues, such as climate change.

      The causes for employing military means in a political conflict are not addressed by a security architecture. They freeze political conflicts and can eventually lead to military confrontation, if some other parameters change, e.g. in the economic field. It would be very illuminating, if the UN could commission an analysis how the military build up in the Russian Federation, the political hubris in the USA over its role as the one remaining superpower after 1991, and the unethical actions of financial institutions driven by the sole motive to gain maximum return on investments and pay the lowest possible taxes, could escape political checks and regulations, within countries, but also between countries. A security architecture will not address these issues, while a peace architecture points to them as conflict triggers.

      Ever since 1945, the major powers, who became the 5 permanent members of the UN security council, never shared a common vision for a peaceful world. The Western countries under US leadership advanced the protection of human rights as a universal vision, but it never gained universal acceptance to this day.The rift over guiding values thus fuelled confrontational geopolitics during the Cold War.  Although a large number of former colonies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East opted out of this equation and formed a block of non-aligned countries, they never established beyond the UN General Assembly a viable global vision for peace and stability. Thus a security architecture emerged since the late 1940s, which reflected the mistrust and the competition between the two blocks. NATO and the Warsaw Pact were formed as military alliances. As the British and French governments retreated from their overseas territories, the USA stepped in by taking over former colonial military bases forming a string around the Soviet Union and China. Both countries responded with a tight political rule and control over their territories and immediate neighbours.

      The bloc leaders compromised only on nuclear non-proliferation, driven more by fear of total war than trust.

      In the 1960s/70s, alongside limited disarmament a fierce race in outer space arose and economic rivalry went on unabated, leaving many newly independent countries very limited room for the formulation of their own policies and determination of their international and national political agendas. Only for a very short period of time were the leaders of the USA and the SU trusting each other in the early 1990s, and achieved some important agreements, as for instance the forming of the OSCE. But the trust was not broadened, and overtime, the rivalry between the US and now the Russian Federation as the successor of the Soviet Union reemerged and erupted in full force after 2000, and around 2010 China entered the world stage as a global power. Michael Gorbachev’s heroic, and in the end tragic failure, to lead the Soviet Union into a new era, still awaits a more critical assessment. With hindsight, we can only say, a pivotal chance for peace was missed!

      While a security architecture defends the nation state and the powers that lead it, a peace architecture defends human well-being. Consequently, a peace architecture runs through the whole society, potentially through all state and non-state entities. It is thus organisationally a demanding challenge to define a peace agenda and bring all relevant stakeholders together to implement it. Besides, national and international peace efforts transcend national boundaries, as do the threats to peace. Many more wars experienced since the 1990s have been intranational as opposed to international, but often with spillovers into other countries, by supporting different national factions, and civilians taking refuge in other countries to escape the violence and destruction at home. In sum, a security architecture tends to be clearly delineated in geographic and political terms. The secrecy around military decisions is a weakness of any security architecture. By contrast, a peace architecture has only loosely defined boundaries, it has an open organisational make up with not always clear lines of authority. The strength of the peace architecture is the commitment to a well-defined set of values, normally human rights, and the rule of law, which through due processes leads to authoritative political decisions.

      Security arrangements aim never to be used. Peace efforts require constant, proactive pursuit. Early warning systems and rapid response teams are needed to contain emerging threats.

      3. Peace means solving conflicts with non-military means

      The culture of peace and a peace architecture accept that there are conflicts, but that the parties to a conflict trust each other’s adherence to the rule of law, or at least to arriving at decisions which are of mutual benefit. Such trust leads to conflict resolution through dialogue, negotiations, mediation, arbitration and is supported by the willingness to compromise with regard to the respective interests. Such compromises then allow for peaceful coexistence; they are open-ended and may need to be reviewed and revised over time. Regrettably the rule of law knows loopholes, which are being exploited by unscrupulous actors for the benefit of their personal gains. Political checks have been weak, and there have been many instances of double standards. In the interest of advancing and strengthening the international rule of law these situations of double standards must be identified and corrected.[1]   

      Trust requires commonly accepted values. Most countries have since 1948 accepted the universality of human rights protection as common values. But right from the start, ideological differences existed, and so problems abound, and they are not always handled with needed sensibility and care. As a consequence human rights (HR) violations are not always rectified. There is no country, which does not face HR violations, however, violations in one country do not justify the violation in another. Corrections need to be done by each country, the blaming and shaming by others should be replaced by monitoring the violations and by recording the corrective action being pursued. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR) as an impartial organisation, should do the monitoring, and communicate the status of HR protection in each country in a neutral and factual language. If national authorities request support, then this should be granted using the best available practice known in any of the member states. This approach could promote universal human rights acceptance regardless of history or politics.


      [1] One of the most telling descriptions is Oliver Bullough “Butler to the World. How Britain Became the Servant of Tycoons, Tax Dodgers, Kleptocrats and Criminals”,2022

      4. The meaning and relevance of a political compromise and the need for periodic reviews

      Right from the beginning the UN were founded on political compromises and at a time of violent conflicts.[1]A peace architecture and a peace culture do not deny the constant danger of violence to break out in a country and between countries, nor does the UN Charter ignore these threats. It attempts to manage them.The causes for outbreaks of violence are manifold, and differ in each case. It is thus accepted, that a security architecture remains in place in order to respond swiftly and effectively to the outbreak of violence, when all other means have failed of maintaining peace. The emphasis is on “swiftly and effectively”. Yet, a body like the security council, which is run on a  day-to-day basis by career diplomats stationed in New York, raises serious questions about the council’s capacity to react to violent threats geographically far removed. Formerly there were times and areas where violence was prohibited, e.g. during the Olympic Games, or specific places were designated as safe havens, such as holy groves and other sanctuary places. We may want to revitalize this practice, to give us time and the opportunity to contemplate the causes for the outbreak of violence, and help us identify solutions without military means.

      The ending of an armed conflict will invariably lead to political compromises, although excessive violence and brutality during the war make reaching compromises often very difficult. Yet, as long as such compromises are more beneficial to all conflict parties than a military confrontation, a peaceful settlement will hold. Compromises, by definition, are time-bound, and their validity needs to be assessed regularly and, at times renegotiated, as overall conditions may have changed. Political compromises are thus a constant demand for political leaders to ensure that the benefits continue to justify the costs. If such assessments are not made in good time, they will lead to an inability to take realistic and rational decisions. The underlying assumption is, that compromise is a better solution than attempting victory with military means. Compromises make sense, if seen from a broader and longer-term view, as a means of enabling peaceful coexistence towards shared objectives and outcomes.


      [1] For this see the vivid and detailed book by Stephen C. Schlesinger “Act of Creation. The Founding of the United Nations”. 2004

      5. The make up of a peace architecture


      A peace architecture tends to be less clearly organized than a security architecture, which often is built around armies and police forces with clear lines of command and authority. A peace architecture is built around multiple stakeholders and the process of reaching decisions can at times be full of contradictions and involve lengthy debates. To bring order into such a complex process political leaders are needed, who are committed to creating and maintaining a peaceful political environment. For this to happen, they need to be made familiar with the existing peace architecture, as described in the UN Charter. The UN Charter offers already many provisions and processes, which can be activated, e.g. Chapter VI, but there are also provisions which need to be added or amended. As an investment into such a global community of political leaders well versed in the demands of a global peace architecture, the UN could use the network of Resident Coordinators and other diplomatic channels to initiate peace education in each country, for instance for politicians entering the stage of national politics. Politicians normally do not enter the political stage with comprehensive knowledge of how to handle conflicts in a peaceful way, often they are representing clientelistic interests. Political education in full compliance with the UN Charter on the one side, and country-specific traditions and structures on the other, a heightened respect for the otherness of countries’ history and governance system may create a global culture of peace, and strengthen over time the adherence to the UN peace architecture by all member states.[1]


      [1] Proposals for UN Reform abound. But one of the most thought-provoking books is Joe Leinen/Andreas Bummel “A World Parliament: Governance and Democracy in the 21st Century”, 2018. It was first published in German in 2017, with in my view a better title: Das demokratische Weltparlament. Eine kosmopolitische Vision.


      6. The peace architecture and disarmament

      While contradictory in aspiration, peace and security are linked: growing a culture of peace enables disarmament agreements through diplomacy. So far, limited deals have focused on reducing nuclear dangers, but not arsenals. Far too little has been done to curb small arms falling into the wrong hands, often fuelling armed conflicts. Beyond protests, more is needed to effectively limit armaments globally, like activating and amending Article 26 of the UN Charter toward measurable arms reduction in legal and illegal trade. Political decisions are needed to reduce weapons access by unauthorized actors, including ethnically based armed groups. There should also be stricter control over private armies’ engagement in conflicts to ensure public oversight of their use.

      7. How do we eliminate wars and get to peaceful conflict resolution?

      Effectively implementing this requires a global pax unensis policy. The U.S. relinquished its pax americana agenda under President Obama without transferring responsibility to the UN or other multilateral bodies. China’s recent Global Security Initiative assigns the UN major roles in peacekeeping and coordination. But a pax sinica will not gain global acceptance either, even with a strengthened UN. Big powers like the U.S. and China must first agree on a shared peace architecture and bring Russia in line with a global vision. Lacking political will among major powers to jointly pursue peace, despite economic and cultural rivalries, other UN member states will not adhere to the Charter nor see the need for meaningful reforms of the UN structure and processes, where required.

      Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asian countries will have to join forces at the state and non-state level to bring about the political change to make peace the overriding political philosophy and practice. Peace movements need to step up their public advocacy, well-known scientists and opinion leaders need to raise their voices to stop ongoing wars and rethink the international global order.

       The UN Secretary-General has a vital role to form this political will and has to walk the talk in a multipolar world in order to achieve alignment with the UN Charter. Using Article 99 fully can stimulate dialogue and momentum for finding suitable, acceptable peace solutions and architecture. This will require sustained political efforts and courage to continually reassess compromises. All must be willing to question their political approaches and philosophies.

      The US and Europe respond too slowly to geopolitical changes, focused excessively on containing China rather than on collective action. NATO’s rationale will likely require recasting, it will need to transform into an open global alliance under Security Council auspices, needing coordinated geopolitical rethinking. UN staff at all levels must stimulate these debates internationally and nationally to make human security the global goal, not national state security.

      This version incorporates many comments from colleagues and friends, foremost from members of the Peace-Making Reflection Group (PRG) under FOGGS. For more information on this group see www.foggs.org/prg

      Berlin, 4 August 2023

      Peace Prospects in the Russia-Ukraine War

      By Paola Betelli

      1. There are some prospects for peace in Ukraine

      In the current circumstances, the prospects for peace seem slim, but they may have improved with the recent visit of the seven African leaders, led by Cyril Ramaphosa, because they approached the parties with respect, impartiality and a willingness to listen, while also setting forth some good starting points for discussion, including adherence to the rule of law and the UN Charter, respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of states, guarantees of security for all parties, facilitation of humanitarian assistance, return of children and prisoners of war, de-escalation of the conflict and reconstruction.

      Notably, both Volodymyr Zelensky and Vladimir Putin were willing to host the African delegation. While Putin openly stated his willingness to negotiate, Zelenskyy made it clear that unless all land currently occupied by Russia was returned, there was no starting point for negotiations. Nonetheless, both leaders expressed their willingness to continue to work with the African delegation, which opens the avenue for discussion, something that had not happened beforehand.

      The main messages of the African leaders were that the war cannot go on forever, and that it must be settled through negotiations and diplomatic means. The violence and suffering must come to end, as well as the negative impacts of the war on many other countries, including African ones.

      2. The United Nations Charter, the rule of law and due process as bases for lasting peace

      The African peace initiative sets into motion a process for the airing of grievances and rapprochement between the parties that, if successful, could lead to the de-escalation of the conflict, the beginning of peace talks and, hopefully, the cessation of hostilities.

      Because the African initiative is in close alignment with the principles and purposes set in the UN Charter, with processes for peace established by the Charter and with due process and the rule of law, it has a good foundation for success.

      a. The United Nations Charter

      The main principles of the UN Charter include saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war, reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights, and establishing conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. To this end, the Charter established the UN Security Council which is the main body charged with peace and security. However, in Article 1, the UN as a whole, is mandated to

      “…. maintain international peace and security, and to that end: take effective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international situations which might lead to a breach of peace.”

      To this end, Article 2 states that the Organization and its members shall, inter alia, settle international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice are not endangered, and members shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

      Despite the current stalemate of the Security Council on the Russia-Ukraine war, Article 10 provides that the General Assembly (GA) may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations. Additionally, under Article 14, the GA may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations.

      Under such UN Charter provisions, in March of 2022 the GA met in an Emergency Session, as provided for in resolution 377 (V) on Uniting for Peace as follows:

      When there is a lack of unanimity of the permanent members of the Security Council and, as a result of it the Council fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the GA shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making immediate recommendations.

      Thus far the GA has issued six resolutions on Ukraine convening in an emergency session and made recommendations, including by urging the immediate peaceful resolution of the conflict. The last resolution (ES-11/6) underscored the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine in line with the principles of the UN Charter.

      b. Rule of law and due process

      Under the UN Charter and principles of international law, States shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations Charter.

      In line with this, under Article 33, the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, of other peaceful means of their own choice.

      Hence, under international law, the peaceful settlement of disputes is paramount, and a number of options have been specified to this end by the UN Charter ranging from an enquiry and negotiation to a judicial settlement.

      In order to uphold this principle, all members of the United Nations, the parties to a conflict and the Organization itself should facilitate the immediate peaceful settlement of a dispute instead of enabling its continuation.

      The peaceful settlement of a dispute does not mean that accountability for war crimes or the crime of aggression will be forgone, nor that the territorial integrity or self-determination of nations disregarded. Rather, settling a dispute according to international law involves a step-by-step approach and due process whereby the parties air their grievances and claims before an impartial entity with authority to hear and settle the case. Hence, due process underpins the legitimacy of the Organization and adherence to the normative framework of the international system.

      Due process is best defined in one word: fairness. An essential question is whether the parties had an opportunity to be heard. Thus, due process entails a fair hearing before an impartial entity with authority to decide the case. There are many components of due process, including providing each of the parties with an opportunity to state their claims, present defenses to the other party’s claims and lay out the facts and evidence that support their claims and defenses.

      Due process is supported by the general principles of law as recognized by civilized nations and reflected in the statutes of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

      Due process is also applicable to the non-judicial settlement of disputes through mediation, arbitration and conciliation. Therefore, due process is also applicable to the international settlement of disputes as provided for by the UN Charter and should entail equal rights for both parties.

      Because due process ensures the legitimacy of the Organization and its role in settling a dispute, it is very effective in terms of building trust among nations and on a rules-based system. International cooperation is predicated on trust. Hence, while international law, including the UN Charter, provides the substantive framework that underpins good relations among nations, due process ensures that these norms are applied fairly.

      Due process is necessary to garner support from a population so that its leaders be held accountable when their actions are in breach of international law because it is fair to do so. More broadly, and from a political perspective, shifting the political mindset of the population to be better aligned with the UN Charter and the principles of international law is a role that UN country teams could advance very effectively.

      3. The role of the United Nations

      The African peace initiative begins to set the foundations for due process for the eventual settlement of the dispute by providing both Ukraine and Russia with the opportunity to be heard. The impartial entity with authority to settle the dispute is yet to be determined, although, presumably it ought to be the United Nations through one of its bodies as mandated by the UN Charter and/or relevant international treaties.

      Unfortunately, the African peace initiative was not pursued under the aegis of the United Nations, the only entity with international authority, except for regional mechanisms, to settle a dispute of this nature.

      Hence, if the African peace initiative is to be successful, it ought to be brought under the realm of the United Nations, either through an invitation by the Secretary-General or the President of the General Assembly, or through a decision/resolution of the General Assembly or the Security Council. Hypothetically, another option would be for the case to be brought before the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court, but the issue of jurisdiction arises since neither Russia nor Ukraine are parties to these instruments.

      In the alternative, and based on the African leaders’ initiative and proposals, either the Secretary-General or the General Assembly could appoint a Commission of Experts from the fields of international law, of peace and security, the management of displaced persons and of reconstruction. Tasked with gathering information on all disputed matters to the conflict, the Commission would offer potential compromise solutions to the parties for their consideration and recommendations for multilateral action to the General Assembly and, perhaps, eventually the Security Council. This Commission would be distinct from the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Human Rights Council, which is focused on human rights violations.

      Complimentary to this Commission of Experts, a Group of Eminent Women could be established whom could advocate for the cessation of hostilities and provide recommendations on humanitarian issues including the protection of women, children, the elderly the disabled and other people in conditions of vulnerability.

      In this regard, ten Security Council resolutions form the foundation of the women, peace, and security agenda. Resolution 1325 (2000) affirms the importance of the participation of women and the inclusion of gender perspectives in peace negotiations, humanitarian planning, peacekeeping operations, and post-conflict peacebuilding and governance.

      Resolution 2493 (2019) requests the UN to develop context-specific approaches for women’s participation in all UN-supported peace processes; and urges Member States to ensure and provide timely support for the full, equal, and meaningful participation of women in all stages of peace processes, including in the mechanisms set up to implement and monitor peace agreements.

      4. The role of the Secretary-General including maintaining impartiality, providing good offices and facilitating political ripeness

      Under Article 99 of the UN Charter the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of peace and security. In addition to this, Article 100 requires the require the Secretary-General and the staff to not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization.

      Thus, in the dispensation of his duties, the UN Secretary-General is required to maintain impartiality and is authorized to bring any matter which may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security to the fore.

      This would suggest that the UN Secretary-General, by virtue of these two provisions of the Charter, must maintain an impartial position with regard to any international dispute and ought to facilitate some form of peaceful resolution. “Hence, one of the most vital roles played by the Secretary-General is the use of their „good offices“ — steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon their independence, impartiality, and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.” (See UN web page on the SG’s role)

      The African leaders’ initiative and proposals seem to be stepping in for the Secretary-General in terms of providing “good offices” for the resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war. While the African initiative, as such, is a welcome one in terms of its potential to bring about a peaceful resolution, it ought to be taken up by the Secretary-General as well. Through his good offices, the SG could play a catalytical role in bringing about political ripeness for conflict resolution.

      Indeed, “a Secretary-General would fail if they did not take careful account of the concerns of Member States, but they must also uphold the values and moral authority of the United Nations, and speak and act for peace, even at the risk, from time to time, of challenging or disagreeing with those same Member States.” (See UN web page on the SG’s role).

      5. The need for a New Agenda for Peace

      When the Security Council is not in agreement about acting on a given international dispute, such as is the case with the Russia-Ukraine war, the UN Charter enables the General Assembly to recommend peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations. The process, as described in Article 12 enables the General Assembly to make recommendations but requires the GA to refer the issue to the Security Council when an action is necessary.

      The New Agenda for Peace needs to define what kinds of actions more clearly would need to be referred by the GA to the Security Council under Article 11.

      In addition to the six potential areas for the New Agenda for Peace outlined by the Secretary-Genera in Our Common agenda, one setting out a systematic process through which Article 99 would be used more frequently and assertively by the Secretary-General is necessary. This could possibly take place through a monthly or quarterly review of the state of world peace, which the Secretary-General would present to joint sessions of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, indicating the situations where Article 99 might apply, also as an early warning/preventive measure. If preventive diplomacy fails and a conflict ensues, the New Agenda should step-up diplomatic efforts to end hostilities including through different phases of due process leading up to mediation or other peaceful resolutions of the conflict. Benchmarks that trigger each of these phases should be clearly outlined by the Secretary-General in his reports to the Security Council and the General Assembly.

      Conclusion

      In sum, there are fair prospects for peace in Ukraine, through the process set in motion by the initiative of the African leaders, but the UN needs to step in to provide the authority and minimum guarantees required for due process in the settlement of the dispute in accordance with the general principles of international law. The New Agenda for Peace should identify and address the gaps that have led to the failure of the UN system to address the Russia-Ukraine war in an effective manner thus far.

      22 June 2023

      Russischer Angriff auf die Ukraine und ein erster russischer Friedensplan

      Medwedews Vorschläge vom 26.5.2023, wie der Krieg zu beenden sei.

      Dies ist eine gute, und eine sehr schlechte Nachricht. Gut ist sie, weil sie zeigt, dass es Stimmen im Kreml gibt, die den Krieg beenden möchten, aus welchen Gründen auch immer. Sehr schlecht ist die Nachricht, weil sie zeigt, wie tief die heutige Führung im Kreml in der alten russischen Ideologie verfangen ist, die da sagt: Der Kreml hat eine Schutzverpflichtung für die „russische Welt“, und um diese zu gewährleisten, müssen alle Russen der staatlichen Hoheit Moskaus unterstellt sein oder werden, wenn nötig, auch mit Gewalt, wie man in der Ukraine sehen kann. Im Einzelnen hatte Medwedew vorgeschlagen, den Donbass in die russische Federation einzugliedern, die westlichen Teilen der Ukraine in die dortigen Nachbarländer und im mittleren Teilen eine Abstimmung abzuhalten, um die Bevölkerung entscheiden zu lassen, wohin sie gehören wollen. Die zugrundeliegende Denkhaltung ist so menschenverachtend und der Politik von vorgestern verpflichtet, dass man auf den Vorschlag als solchen gar nicht eingehen muss. Aber es gibt andere Aspekte, über die mit Russland ein Dialog angestrebt werden muss.

      Mit der Wiederbelebung der jahrhundertealten politischen Doktrin einer zu bewahrenden russischen Welt in Europa und Asien verlässt Moskau endgültig den weltweiten Konsens, den die Welt mit der VN Charter 1945 geschaffen hat, die den Nationalstaat als Grundbaustein des internationalen Systems bestimmt. Zwar setzt auch die VN Charter den Nationalstaatenprinzip eine gewisse Grenze mit dem Selbstbestimmungsrecht, aber im Falle der Ukraine ist das ziemlich eindeutig: die überwältigende Mehrheit der ukrainischen Bevölkerung möchte in einem von Russland unabhängigen Staat leben. Folgerichtig haben deshalb mehr als 140 Staaten von 193 Mitgliedsländern den russischen Angriff auf die Ukraine mehrfach verdammt; bei einer der letzten Resolutionen der Generalversammlung stimmten selbst China und Indien zu, die sich bis dahin immer der Stimme enthielten.

      Es gibt also Bewegung sowohl auf russischer wie auf der Seite der internationalen Gemeinschaft. Aber werden diese zu einer Verhandlungsbasis führen, um ein Ergebnis zu erzielen, dass beide Seiten akzeptieren können? Ich fürchte, dass dies nicht, noch nicht, der Fall ist. Zu weit liegen beide Seiten auseinander in ihrem Verständnis für den Angriff und seine Berechtigung bzw. Illegalität.

      Nun ist es unbestreitbar, dass viele politische Entwicklungen aus dem Ruder gelaufen sind seit 1945, und ganz sicherlich seit 1990, als die Sowjetunion zusammenbrach, und die USA als einzige Weltmacht übrigblieb. Statt sich aber für Frieden, Toleranz und Kooperation stark zu machen, wie am Ende und nach dem Ende des 2. Weltkrieges, entschloss sich die politische Führung der USA (sowohl auf der Seite der Demokraten wie auch auf der Seite der Republikaner) zu einer hegemonialen Politik, nicht mit Gebietseroberungen, aber eindeutig mit ihrer Wirtschafts- und Kulturpolitik, die sie um die Welt trugen. Wenn der Widerstand dagegen zu heftig war, wurde auch militärisch interveniert, mit, aber meistens ohne ein Mandat des VN Sicherheitsrates. Die unmittelbaren Anlässe waren entweder Korruption, despotische Regierungsführung oder terroristische Angriffe gegen US Einrichtungen und ihrer Verbündeten. Nicht immer, wurden Entscheidungen gefällt auf der Basis von eindeutigen Tatsachen, wie der US Angriff 2003 auf den Iraq zeigte. Zurecht wies damals Kofi Annan, der Generalsekretär der Vereinten Nationen, darauf hin, dass diese US-amerikanische Militäraktion einen Bruch des internationalen Rechts darstellte, so wie der heutige Generalsekretär, Antonio Guterres, es ebenso tat in Bezug auf die russische Invasion in der Ukraine.

      Der Unterschied zwischen den beiden Generalsekretären liegt allerdings darin, dass Kofi Annan den Dialog immer suchte, um zu einer friedensbildenden Politik zu finden, während Antonio Guterres verstummt ist. Er hat sich öffentlich nicht zu seinem Schweigen geäußert, aber nach dem Abschluss des Getreideabkommens, sagte er, dass er noch nie an solchen komplizierten Verhandlungen teilgenommen habe. Daraus kann man wahrscheinlich ableiten, dass er schweigt, weil er keinen Weg sieht für die Vereinten Nationen, die komplizierte politische Gemengelage zu beeinflussen in Richtung der Einhaltung der VN Charter und des internationalen Friedens.

      Aber selbst wenn der VN Generalsekretär verstummt ist, so suchen doch einige Mitgliedsländer der Vereinten Nationen den Dialog sowohl mit Moskau wie mit Kiew und seinen Unterstützern. Und das ist zu begrüßen. So gibt es einen chinesischen Friedensplan und einen chinesischen Sonderbotschafter, der sich allerdings einer sehr großen Skepsis zu erwehren hat. Zu groß ist das Mistrauen in Washington, Brüssel und anderen europäischen Hauptstädten bezüglich Chinas Motivation für diese angebotene Vermittlerrolle. Es werden Ende Juni 6 afrikanische Staatschefs auf Initiative des südafrikanischen Präsidenten nach Moskau und Kiew reisen, um Gespräche zu führen. Sie wollen erkunden, wie, wann und wo eine friedliche Lösung zu finden sein könnte. Auch Brazilien hat solche Erkundungsgespräche geführt.

      In den letzten Tagen wurde bekannt, dass die Ukraine zu einer Friedenskonferenz für Ende Juli nach Kiew einladen wird, allerdings keine Einladung an Russland und Belarus plant. So verständlich dies ist, angesichts der fortdauernden russischen Angriffe auf zivile ukrainische Ziele, aber ist es auch klug? Sollte nicht wenigstens Außenminister Lawrow und der belarussische Außenminister teilnehmen können? Denn, wie immer ein eventueller Friedensschluss aussehen wird, ohne Verhandlungen mit Russland wird es nicht gehen. Je häufiger Gelegenheiten gesucht werden, der russischen Führung zu vermitteln, dass sie völkerrechtlich im Unrecht ist, und ein radikales Umdenken in Bezug auf Russlands geopolitische Bedeutung und Verantwortung notwendig erscheint, desto größer werden die Chancen, akzeptable Lösungen für alle Beteiligten zu finden. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es wichtig zu beachten, dass Moskau kürzlich erfolgreich eine Vermittlerrolle im Streit zwischen Armenien und Azerbaijan über Bergkarabach übernahm. Irgendwo im russischen System gibt es also Politiker und Beamte, die sich um Frieden bemühen, ohne eine russische Übermacht anzustreben.

      Diese Kräfte müssen gestärkt werden, denn nur sie werden Russland aus der augenblicklichen politischen Isolation führen können.

      Geopolitics seen from a UN Political Perspective

      Ukraine, Taiwan and other conflicts

      It seems that in 2022 a number of lingering geopolitical controversies and simmering conflicts between the US, Russia and China come to a boil. First the conflict over which global power determines the future of the Ukraine and its alliances, and then, the visit of Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, which raises again the issue whether Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China or not. While in the first case, the overwhelming majority of countries condemn Russia’s attack on Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity, in the latter case, an equal or even larger number of countries take the position that the island of Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory. Even the US accepts this. At issue is, whether Taiwan can maintain its own of way of governance, which is quite different from the one of mainland China, and whether the Communist Party of China and the Guomintang can regard their fight over the control of China to have ended.

      Nancy Pelosi’s visit and her righteousness about US obligations for protecting Taiwan’s independence and the Taiwanese right of self-determination throws into relief the contours of the emerging global conflicts, as does the Russian military action in Ukraine. In many ways, the political views of Ms. Pelosi und Mr. Putin are frozen in time, and correspond more to the 1960s/70s than the beginning of the 21st century. Both politicians are the living example of people lost in today’s geopolitical reality, which is more complex than it ever was, and fraught with uncertainties and ambiguities. Of course, they are not the only ones. But their conservative views matter obviously heavy, given the political power they represent; and they are worrisome.

      How did we get to this stage of geopolitical enmity, wars and threats of warfare?

      The last three US governments have retreated from the role of global policeman. While doing so, for certainly good, mostly domestic reasons, they failed to handover the task they began to some other organisation or organisations. The logical choice would have been the UN, but failing this, it could have been other multilateral organisations. Obama’s choice in 2016 to make Angela Merkel the custodian of the liberal world order was a weak attempt to handover the watchdog function, and it brought Germany a very delayed change of government and resetting of political priorities for the country and Europe.

      Such poor choices are fed by old-fashioned ideas about nation states. While they remain the constituent elements of the geopolitical order for now, they are counterproductive for the well-being of nations and their populations, when their governments act unilaterally.  No country in today’s world is big enough to determine the fate of other countries, no country is small enough to be not a real threat to international peace and stability. Hence, we need other mechanisms to ensure that all people can live in peace, pursue their life, where they are, or migrate with legal papers, and realize a decent living standard anywhere.

      Political systems are historically grown and they differ. There is no system or regime that is perfect, and can thus serve as a model for all. Succeeding US governments have learned this, but it seems Ms. Pelosi has not followed a similar learning curve. Nor has Mr. Putin, who seems to believe that the world will be a better place, once the old Soviet/Russian empire is restored by military means. China by contrast has taken so far a very different, more measured approach. It distinguished between what is, in principle, agreed and what is pragmatically doable. But on one condition: Beijing decides what is in the national interest, and not another country or a government which rules over a part of China. As regards Taiwan, the Chinese Government and the Communist Party have decided that Taiwan is a part of China and needs to be reunited with the rest of the country. That a vast majority of the Taiwanese people see this differently, is of lesser importance. In fact, it is more an issue for the Party than the government. Assuming sovereignty over Taiwan is the one missing step to the communist victory in the civil war, which ended in 1949. Ever since, Beijing has maintained its claim and asked all countries with which it opened diplomatic relations to accept the One-China principle. When the People’s Republic of China replaced the Republic of Taiwan in 1971 as the representative of the Chinese people in the UN, and took over the permanent seat in the security council, this claim was further reinforced. The US, like other countries, confirmed its acceptance of the One-China policy, but made the reservation that unification should not be the result of a unilateral and/or military move. Over the last decades Beijing has observed this reservation. Under Zhang Zi Ming, negotiations were very far advanced to end the still open conflict between the Communist Party of China and the Guomintang in Taipei, but a sizeable part of the non-Chinese population in Taiwan was not in favour, as was a part of the Communist Party leadership, because the issue of the reunification remained vague and mostly undefined, and consequently the deal was never concluded. The handover of Hong Kong in 1997 and the policy of One Country Two Systems seemed to open new avenues, but again, by now, the democratic structures in Taiwan have become so strong that mistrust by the Taiwanese prevails, which was also reinforced by the most recent events in Hong Kong.

      It remains unexplained, why Nancy Pelosi decided to travel to Northeast Asia this year, and as part of this trip, to Taiwan. There was no immediate change in policy on either side of this political equation. The Chinese sphere of interest is expanding in the South Pacific islands, and is challenging US American dominance there. Why she did not go to visit the South Pacific Island states rather than the immediate neighbours of China, remains a mystery, unless she wanted as a farewell gift to her Californian constituency secure a major armament deal between the US industry and Taiwan. But this remains unconfirmed.

      US – China rivalry – a trap which needs to be avoided

      In any event, Nancy Pelosi has retained a geopolitical understanding which is largely out of step with reality. Conversely, this can also be said about China, at least to some extent. In today’s world to replace US dominance by Chinese dominance in Asia and elsewhere can’t possibly be the answer to a more peaceful geopolitical situation. The underlying economic and national interests might be served by such a policy, but the global well-being certainly not. To suspend cooperation with the US on issues of climate change and nuclear disarmament are big steps in the wrong direction. It is almost tragic that Chinese leaders appear to follow the advice of experts who trained in the US, and seem to think, that beating the US by its ways and means, is the recipe for Chinese success. Instead, it would make sense that the Chinese Government now acts vigorously on its policy of creating a multipolar world, with the hubs of big powers networked among each other under the umbrella of the UN. Given China’s current economic strength, ever growing military power and long-term political goals for 2035 and 2049, the implementation of this foreign policy, adopted after 1989, appears a much better choice than the current aggressiveness which in many ways is very alien to the Chinese culture. Besides, the world’s people will view this aggressiveness quite differently. And if Chinese economic and geopolitical interests align with the selfish interests of small power elites like in Sri Lanka, then this expansionist policy will soon produce failures, which will haunt the Chinese leadership in the long run, as past hegemony is haunting the US today.

      How can we come out of this downward spiral of events and trends?

      When China opened in 1978/9 to the outside world, it presented itself as a developing country. The government did not ask for development aid, but, when it was offered, took the funds and started with these a process of learning from the outside world and of trial and error with pilot reform projects. As it began to gain in economic strength, China’s foreign policy advocated a multipolar world guided by the provisions of the UN Charter. It remained within the UN ambit a member of the Group of 77, i.e. the non-aligned movement, and refused to become a member of the G7, when it was invited to join. Why the Chinese leadership today emulates US big power politics remains unclear. Why it did not distance itself clearly from Russia’s military invasion in the Ukraine, throws a light on how far away the Chinese government and party stray from their own proclaimed foreign policy, which was never revoked. But the Chinese government is not the only one, which falls short of expectations. In Germany we voted a government into power, which we expected to set different priorities in Germany’s national and international policies than the governments under Angela Merkel had pursued. Instead, we see with regard to international engagement, quite the contrary, namely more of the same, and even less. We witness uncritical partisanship, when principled equanimity would be required. While reaching out to like-minded partners is indispensable, making others to adversaries or even enemies in today’s interconnected world is outright stupid. Clearly, there is nothing to be said for President Putin’s policy, but there is a lot to be said for keeping a dialogue with his government going. President Erdogan’s moves in tandem with the UN is a more promising way forward, and may give opportunities to respond more adequately to his heavy-handedness vis-à-vis Greece and the Kurdish people. Apropos Kurdish people: as we supported the Spanish government in its policy to not grant Catalonia independence, similarly we should not support Kurdish nationalism. In this age, other forms of respect and tolerance of national diversity can be practised, even across national borders, and digital systems can be a great help to manage daily life in a multilingual social environment. The partners of Turkey should support such approaches to overcome the political conflict between the mainstream society and the Kurdish minority.

      One of the most promising concepts for a more peaceful international interplay between countries and regions is the initiative to formulate a feminist foreign policy. When one hears this term for the first time, it is a great enigma. Fortunately, a group of German NGOs has recently presented a concept paper which gives this enigmatic term concrete meaning. Basically the 22 page paper promotes peace-building policies, disarmament and avoidance of hard power politics. The full paper can be found here:

      https://dgvn.de/meldung/positionspapier-annaeherung-an-eine-feministische-aussenpolitik-deutschlands

      Will the UN fix current geopolitical problems?

      The short answer is: no, if we continue with business as usual. Yes, if we change political actions and behaviour at all levels, i.e. at the level of the member states, the secretariats with their staff and the civil society organisations.

      There are plenty of stumbling blocks for an overall change. But it does not have to be impossible. As a former UN staff member of 30 years who rose through the ranks to the level of senior management positions, and who served both in the field as Resident Coordinator in Malawi and China, and at headquarters level as Assistant Director General in WHO, I know from my own experience the pitfalls for maintaining at all times an impartial, but constructively critical stance with regard to national policies and politics. One of the most obvious preconditions is, that for the UN and in the context of the UN not the form and shape of the political regime is decisive, but the adherence to the principles of good governance. The yardsticks for good governance are stipulated in art. 1 and 2 of the UN Charter. By virtue of signing up for UN membership all signatory states have thus accepted these principles. In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 and the two covenants of the 1960/70s have made the protection of human rights the guiding values for any state and for all political action. As the Universal Declaration and the 2 Covenants have been signed by an overwhelming majority of member states, we can say that we have almost universal coverage, too.

      Important to note in this context is that those member states which have not signed until today, should be given priority attention by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to remove whatever is holding up their signatures and ratification. That a Human Rights High Commissioner did not visit China for 17 years is a big error. The often partisan and muddled handling of Human Rights situations by human rights advocates does not help efforts, but it is here that the UN officials have to provide clarity and leadership. Basically, as the obligation of human rights protection rests with the governments any violation has to be regarded as a domestic political responsibility. This responsibility is subdivided into the requirements of adequate political action, e.g. anti-discriminatory policies and political programmes and a strong rule by law. If the High Commissioner and the UN staff were to stick to these parameters, then we may be seeing more tangible progress than at present.

      Human Rights Protection as the Way, Peace as the Goal

      Setting guiding political principles with the Universal Declaration in the wake of the Second World War and creating an international, intergovernmental organisation with the aim of maintaining international peace and stability was a big aspiration in the 1940s and following decades. Some member states expressed reservations, and even those who signed were not fully satisfied with the instruments created. But in the 21st century to act according to these principles is no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity. It appears that not all UN high ranking officials are realizing this, and prefer to throw the towel rather than to risk a visible clash over what is required in today’s world. Mme Bachelet’s resignation and her controversial handling of the human rights situation in Xinjiang/China is a telling example. Human Rights protection thus remains a big challenge in today’s world, irrespective of political regimes and order.

      Similarly, the goal of international peace remains elusive, albeit possibly achievable, if there were a clearly defined strategy how to have all member states adhere to all provisions of the UN Charter. I have written about aspects of these requirements and, in particular deplored that the UN secretary-general acted often too late, and is too much focussed on humanitarian matters rather than on mediating in political conflicts. It appears that when he delegates such mediation, as he obviously has to do given the large number of ongoing conflicts, he no longer takes an active interest. But any conflict involving the 5 permanent members of the security council has to be handled by himself. That he seems to have only a sporadic contact to some of these governments is inexcusable. His predecessors were much more engaged in building a strong link to the heads of government and states of the 5 Ps, as they are who have the power to change the course of geopolitical policy and politics. Attending meetings of the G7 and G20 as a low-key participant is not sufficient. The world at large needs to hear the Secretary General and his messages independently of those gatherings of member states.

      More importantly, the Secretary General should be seen as upholding at all times the provisions of the UN Charter. Since its creation the UN has never enacted all the provisions of the Charter, in particular those of Chapter VI and VII. Of course, it is not up to the Secretary General to enact the provisions, he just has to monitor that it happens. But he or she can encourage discreetly behind the scenes member states to become active, and set an intergovernmental process in motion. Articles, which are waiting for their activation are e.g. art.27.3, 44 – 50 and art. 109. The last one demands that a general conference is be held every 10 years to review and assess the robustness of the UN Charter and the organisational arrangements. Such a conference was never held, but it begs the question whether the time is not ripe for such a general conference to be called in the coming years, e.g. in the context of discussions on successor arrangements for the Agenda 2030.

      With such a renewed political process the UN will be invigorated. As a result, we shall not remove all threats to peace and social stability, but we should be getting a handle on problems which political scientists today consider as “wicked problems”. We should be able to end wars which are frozen, and we may move on from a culture of enmity and hate to a culture of tolerance and cooperation. That is what the UN was founded for.

      The War in Ukraine and how it will impact the UN

      The war in Ukraine threw into stark relief the new patterns of geopolitics: On the one hand, there is the revived West, led by the USA, which began to wind down foreign military actions around 2010. On the other, there is certainly China, still without a strong international following, but making common cause with a number of like-minded countries which deeply mistrust the “retreat” of the USA and hold many grudges against that superpower for its past actions. There is also a number of countries, mostly in Africa and Latin America, but also some Asian countries, which don’t want to side with one or the other. They are done with neoliberalism, which to them is neocolonialism, and forms of international security arrangements, which they see less as a protective, but rather as a mechanism of foreign domination. Strangely, Russia and the EU are out on a limb in this emerging order.

      What all groups of countries have in common: they all signed up to the UN and the UN Charter, even though it plays only a marginal role in their political outlook and action, and their participation in the UN and its work is left to their diplomats and bureaucrats  from their respective ministries. Only civil society organisations and scientists are in unwavering support of the UN, while other non-state stakeholders, such as the business community and the established media are doing so only selectively.

      Power struggles between the two or three emerging blocks will continue to dominate global politics. They will at times be ruthlessly fought out in pursuit of basically economic interests, even when they are carried out under religious or ideological masks. At the same time, global challenges, like climate change and pandemics, require to put limits and standards in place for economic activities and need to be enforced in order to protect the global commons. WHO is fairly far along this way in its fight against pandemics, but even there, as the COVID-19 experience demonstrated, no effective enforcement mechanisms exist. This is even more the case with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement. 

      Thus the UN secretariat and the whole UN system as global public organisations will have to find new ways and means to motivate member states to a) change economic globalisation and b) bring multilateralism in line with global requirements. At the same time, while the UN system is virtually indispensable for all this and more to happen, it is weak and performing far from optimally at present. How can the UN be made fit for the tasks of today and of the future?

      First, we need more courageous UN leaders than we have at present. The last two UN Secretaries-General, Ban Ki-moon and António Guterres, have been strong in showing the way ahead through the Agenda 2030 with its 17 SDGs, and supported through humanitarian assistance populations suffering from wars and natural emergencies. They have failed, though, to stay in touch with the powers that be and, even if not being listened to, to constantly seek the dialogue and moderate a dialogue between the emerging blocks. They selectively supported one or the other in their respective initiatives, and by doing so, compromised the UN mandate of neutrality and impartiality without offering at least a vision of the world as a better functioning place, beyond issue specific appeals. There are plenty of previous instances, when a Secretary-General spoke up and fell afoul of his “masters”. But that is the courage we need, if change is to happen in the long run.

      There is, secondly, no way that the P 5 can continue to get away with their irresponsible use of veto and imposing their political views on other member states. The P 5 need to remember, and if they forget, they need to be reminded by other member states and the UN Secretary-General that they, more than anybody else, have to adhere to the UN Charter and set a positive example. This would include P5 members abstaining from voting on resolutions that concern disputes they are party to, at least when those resolutions are to be adopted under Chapter VI of the Charter (“Pacific Settlement of Disputes”), as per Article 27.3 of the Charter. If they fail to do so, only the votes of the other Council members should be considered valid and any complaint be lodged with the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

      Thirdly, many provisions in the UN charter are “can” provisions. This can mean, it is a possibility to act, or: it is permitted to act. We need to interpret these provisions, as permissible and doable; only then will we be able to eventually get to a reform of the security council, get credible participation of all member states in the strategy for a better world, and give the rule of law the upper-hand against the rule of strength.

      The Russia-Ukraine war is a major test case of the relevance and future-worthiness of the UN, and so far the UN is not making a dent. At least the Secretary-General, with support from other senior officials, seems to be trying. Another upcoming test case will be the exploration of the sea floor in the Pacific Ocean and the Artic. At least 4 out of the 5 Permanent Members of the Security Council are with their interests pitched against each other there. The UN, through the offices of UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) is right in the middle of this. China, Russia, the US are stepping up their military capacities. Will the UN live up to the challenge of preventing future wars? Will it succeed in making good on its mandate of global disarmament and peaceful settlement of disputes between competing national interests? What in 1945 was an ambitious aspiration is a necessity today, not least in order to focus minds, energies and resources on real global challenges, like climate change and pandemics.

      War in Europe

      How to seize this crisis as an opportunity for a new global political order

      Since more than 3 months a war is waging in Europe, caused by a permanent member of the security council in violation of the UN charter. The shock sits deep, and Russia’s political action received an overwhelming condemnation by a 141 member states out of 193 in the UN General Assembly. But as a matter of principle the condemnation should have been unanimous, because condemning this violation of the UN Charter is one thing, how to go about rectifying the situation quite another. China and India have failed here miserably, and gave an example that should have been avoided.

      By now, many political leaders, multilateral bodies, experts have sprung into action, seeking a way to end the war and to get international politics back on track in order to achieve through negotiations agreements on humanitarian relief, an armistice and a long-term solution to the conflict which has been smouldering for many years.

      What needs to be resolved?

      The Ukraine wants to get out of the constant overbearing dominance of the Russian Federation. The Ukrainian population wants to be master in their own country, and align themselves as equals with other European countries which are members of the EU. They also wanted to become a member of NATO, but have dropped this aspiration accepting instead a guaranteed political and military neutrality. Domestically they want to give the Ukrainian language and culture a higher profile and general acceptance. In a country which is predominantly bilingual, if not multilingual, an ambitious undertaking and fraught with the potential of social conflicts, if not managed well. So far, this has not been managed well. The current Ukrainian government also wants to reduce corruption in the country and strengthen democratic institutions and processes. Yet, coming out of a tradition of authoritarianism, this is a demanding process of changing the political culture, which is not done overnight. The Ukraine’s lack of capacity to implement its part of the Minsk Agreement, or at least to keep a dialogue process alive, is a telling sign of these challenges.

      Russia felt and feels neglected as a global power. But this neglect was primarily a result of a Russian introspective attitude and the trauma of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more than of neglect by the USA and European countries. The expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe clearly did not help to overcome the Russian trauma. For at least 2 decades the Russian government has retreated from the world stage as an active player, mostly denying participation in multilateral, i.e. UN mandated actions, and pursuing their own international initiatives without UN backing. Thus, unilateral actions, such as the civil war in Syria, led to further estrangements with the other big powers, except with China, which also opposes US hegemonial policies. Interestingly enough, when the US under President Obama retreated from this hegemonial policy, the Russian government saw this as weakness, and not as a rational choice by the US government. Clearly, because of this interpretation, Moscow missed at that point an opportunity to strengthen collaboration with the US and others in the context of the UN, probably because it was already too far along on its path of revitalising pan-Russian unity and restoring its geographic spheres of influence. The increasing unwillingness of Western countries to engage with Russia in a political dialogue about the geopolitical situation since 2012 has now led to a situation where two blocks appear on the global horizon, one of democratic governance, led by the US and one of authoritarian governance, led by China. Once more, Russia is not in the same political league as these two countries. Neither is the EU for that matter. And while the EU is willing to accept US leadership, Russia will most likely not accept Chinese leadership.

      Interestingly enough, a smaller third block is equally emerging as during the time of the Cold War with the group of non-aligned countries. This time these countries, mostly from Africa, object to any form of neocolonialism, resource exploitation, proxy wars etc. This group is relatively small, but it may become stronger and more influential, if India, the EU and some Asian and Latin American countries join hands with them on specific occasions.

      Commensurate with this forming of two, possibly three blocks, is the disengagement from economic interdependence and dependencies created through globalisation after 1989. The blocks will most likely strengthen the economic ties within their blocks, but compete fiercely with each other. Will this competition give enough attention to the Agenda 2030 and its 17 SDGs?

      How to escape the growing estrangement and enmity?  

      In principle, competition is to be welcomed. And a more critical attitude regarding our political system as well. For far too long we assumed in the West that our neoliberal policy and our democratic traditions are the model for all countries. By now, we know, that this won’t work, and we need to establish a new understanding what good governance in the 21st century would or should mean, and which economic policies lead us along the path towards sustainability. Pointing at each other’s failures will not resolve these problems, instead we need to find the common ground and build our relationships on this, in spite of major differences. Castigating the Chinese government for its policy in Xinjiang, the US for its continuing racism, Europe for its handling of migrants across the Mediterranean, etc. will not get us to overcome enmity. As much as such inhuman treatment of individuals, or ethnic groups beg for a more human course of action, we must focus our attention on building a modicum of trust in each other’s commitment to overcome wars, and allowing people wherever they live to have a decent living standard and environment. That is what all the big powers and all countries, which are members of the UN, have committed to when they signed the UN Charter.

      The current secretary-general Antonio Guterres has invested a lot of UN resources into keeping the attention of member states and people on global challenges. While emphasising the global threats, he also points out repeatedly the achievements of people and communities around the world to move us in the direction of sustainable development. Regrettably he is forgetting over these broader issues, the challenges here and now in the political arena. As a result, we see a growing erosion of the authority of the UN and its staff. Neutrality and impartiality have less and less coinage in today’s world.  More and more people regard the UN as a lame duck, and incapable of intervening successfully in ongoing conflicts, except for mobilising humanitarian assistance to suffering populations. These are dangerous trends, and put us all on the path towards a global hell, something which should be avoided under any circumstances.

      The UN leadership today is too hesitant to play an active role in the geopolitical power game. The President of the USA has now clarified in an op-ed piece in the New York Times what his government wants to achieve. They will continue to strengthen the defense capability of the Ukrainian army in order to enhance their position at the negotiation table. However, he stopped here and did not say that the US is supporting negotiations, and will consider the lifting of sanctions, if and when credible agreements between the Russian and Ukrainian government have been reached.

      What the position of President Putin and President Selenskyj is at this point in time is less clear. What is clear is that the Russian government has changed its game plan, after the initial one did not work. They now appear wanting to transform the Ukraine into a “failed state”, and to leave it to the EU to pick up the pieces. Already now the current budget of the Ukrainian government needs to be propped up by financial support from the US and EU states. Millions of Ukrainians are being supported in neighbouring countries. Rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure and human settlements will cost billions and take a long time, as the world economy is already struggling with the supply of needed materials. Paradoxically it will be Russia which might be able to supply building and other materials, but will a Ukrainian government want these? Difficult to imagine, unless somebody steps into the scene, and stops this military, economic, psychological and cultural warfare. Only the UN could possibly muster such a task, but that would require the UN secretary-general and the UN bodies and organisations to play an infinitely more active role.

      The Ukraine – Russia conflict is a global conflict, hence it has to be solved globally

      Where can we find the entry into an alternative course of action? Two possibilities appear feasible. First, the UN secretary-general has to continue his direct dialogue with the two warring parties. At this moment, it would be particularly important to find ways and means to export the grain harvests of last year stored in Ukrainian and Russian harbours in order to avoid global food shortages. Turkey has taken an initiative, and the security council has heard a report from the executive director of WFP and discussions are ongoing between the UN and the Russian and Ukrainian government respectively about a sea corridor to ship grain and fertilizers out via the Black Sea. But such discussions have to be made much more publicly known, irrespective of the need for confidentiality during the negotiation process. The global public needs to know what is being done to end this war and avoid its dire consequences for the world. Instead, we see daily reports how the war is progressing, and witness public debates about how to arm, rather than disarm the two fighting countries. Even if, there is a military victory one way or the other, what is gained by that in light of the continuing destruction, displacement, suffering of people?

      We need to find ways to disarm and prepare the ground for negotiations. Disarmament will mean to stop military action, change media coverage, and lifting of sanctions in order to begin the process of reconstruction and resumption of civilian life in the Ukraine and elsewhere. This will demand a well orchestrated and choreographed series of steps by national, regional state and non-state actors, which only the UN staff could manage, as they are not a direct party to this conflict. The political neutrality of the UN does not, however, involve impartiality. On the contrary. What in 1945 was an ambitious aspiration, is today a necessity. At the time that the UN was founded, promoting a global outlook and give a global mandate to an organisation beyond national interests was desirable, today it is indispensable. We live in a globalised world, and the challenge to keep peace and stability is a global challenge. As are climate change and the management of pandemic threats.

      In 1998/99, the then UN secretary-general Kofi Annan saw this very clearly, and formulated a global road map for the 21st century with the Millennium Declaration, which was adopted in September 2000 by a gathering of 149 heads of state and government; and in 2015 this road map was updated by the universal Agenda 2030. Boutros Ghali, Kofi Annan and his successor managed this process against great odds.

      The two powers that had dominated the global stage after 1948 were either gloating about their “victory”, or reeling from the disruptions of the collapse of their political and state system. Smaller countries and non-state-actors began to fill the void left by the dissolution of the two power blocks, but they did not manage to gain the upper-hand on any of the global civilian fronts. 

      Instead, we saw more weapons traded on the world market, legally and illegally, and we saw every year more local wars than ever before. The disarmament mandate of the UN had always only resulted in a patchwork of treaties and agreements and did not rise to the challenge of a global disarmament system; and in recent years it even lost ground.

      Art. 26 of the UN Charter was never fully enacted, namely to establish a system for the regulation of armaments, nor was Art. 47 to form a Military Staff Committee consisting of the Chiefs of Staff of the 5 permanent members of the security council. It is good to know that even today in spite of all the enmity between the US and Russia the two ministers of defence are in direct contact. But that is not enough. It behoves the secretary-general to remind the P 5 of their obligation under art. 47. There will most likely be little willingness to comply, but change only comes against initial reluctance of the powers that be; endurance and patience are indispensable.

      But what is equally important is to invest in confidence building measures and actions, which can strengthen our trust in each other’s preparedness of making our way towards a peaceful future in spite of all our disagreements, frustrations and different aspirations. The war in Europe is the test case whether we can achieve this reversal in global politics. There always will be the tension between the rule of strength and the rule of law, but today these are out of balance, and the world’s people suffer as a consequence. This is unacceptable.

      I thank Ingeborg Breines and Georgios Kostakos for their valuable inputs into an earlier draft of this blog.

      Krieg in Europa

      Wie kommen wir da wieder raus?

      Nun ist schon seit über 3 Monaten Krieg in Europa, und ein Ende ist nicht abzusehen. Geführt wird dieser Krieg militärisch, wirtschaftlich, psychologisch und mit einer Kommunikation auf beiden Seiten, die eher das Kämpfen als die Beendigung des Kampfes betont.

      Drei Möglichkeiten eines Kriegsergebnisses zeichnen sich ab: ein Machtwechsel im Kreml, eine Ausweitung des Kriegsgeschehens über die Ukraine hinaus, oder eine diplomatische Lösung mit Kompromissen auf beiden Seiten. Nur die letztere ist die Lösung, die Nachhaltigkeit verspricht, und ein Umlenken des Geschehens hin zu Kooperation, Wiederaufbau und Aussöhnung. Nur wie kommen wir dahin?

      An Vermittlungsversuchen hat es nicht gefehlt, auch nicht an Appellen die kämpferischen Handlungen einzustellen. Nur gefruchtet haben sie nicht. Müssen wir also hinnehmen, dass wir machtlos einem politischen und militärischen Geschehen ausgeliefert sind?

      Ist der Krieg alternativlos?

      Ich meine nein, das müssen wir nicht. Aber wir müssen uns sehr viel mehr anstrengen, ein Umdenken auf beiden Seiten des Kampfes zu erreichen, und das damit verbundene andere Verhalten und Handeln der politischen Führungen. Seit dem 24.2. leben wir nämlich in zwei parallelen Welten: einer, die auf die Macht der Stärke setzt, und eine andere, die sich auf Vernunft, Dialog, Kompromisse und das freiwillige Einhalten von Gesetz und Recht verlässt. Natürlich sind die Grenzen zwischen diesen beiden Welten fließend, und in der letzteren hat es oft die Demonstration der Macht gegeben, ohne Bereitschaft zum politischen Kompromiss, lediglich zum einseitigen politischen Einlenken. Unabhängig wie man zur Weltsicht der heutigen russischen Regierung steht, das hegemoniale Verhalten der USA nach 1989 und die politische Kurzsichtigkeit der EU, die sich mehr mit sich selbst als mit den Machtverhältnissen in der Welt beschäftigte, sind zwei Faktoren, die wir nicht übersehen sollten bei einer Analyse, wie es zum Krieg in Europa kommen konnte.

      Wie sind wir in diese Situation geraten?

      Was auffällt ist, dass wir zum Zeitpunkt, wo ich diese Zeilen schreibe, noch längst nicht alle unsere Karten voll ausgereizt haben. Einige haben wir sogar falsch eingesetzt in diesem politischen Machtkampf, um zu einem nicht-militärischen internationalen Wettbewerb zu kommen.

      Wir haben Fehler gemacht. Wir haben die russische Regierung und die verheerende Sprengkraft der panrussischen Philosophie unterschätzt. Wir haben in Russland wirtschaftlich investiert, aber in erster Linie um Geschäfte zu machen. Wir haben unterschätzt, welche Kräfte in der russischen Gesellschaft am Werk sind. Wir haben versäumt die politische, wirtschaftliche und kulturelle Zusammenarbeit so zu führen, dass auch in Russland zukunftsorientierte, kooperative und weltoffene Kräfte in der russischen Gesellschaft Gehör und Einfluss erhalten bleiben. Stattdessen haben wir auf einzelne Oppositionelle gesetzt und auf die Unterstützung einiger zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen, während wir tatsächlich die wahren Kräfte der Macht: Kirche, Sicherheitsorgane des Staates und Medien ausklammerten. Wir haben uns wenig um ein Verständnis und eine wissenschaftlich begründete Analyse des post-sowjetischen Russlands bemüht, sondern uns mehr über Missstände, Cyberangriffe und die russische Unterstützung des rechten politischen Spektrums in westlichen Demokratien empört. Wir haben uns nicht gefragt, wer oder was diese Handlungen begründet, und wiegten uns in einer falschen Sicherheit. Viel früher hätte abgewogen werden müssen, inwieweit wirtschaftliches Handeln zu einem Wandel führt, und wann wir uns zurückhalten müssen, um unsere eigenen Werte und gesellschaftlichen Vorstellungen nicht zu kompromittieren. Nach der Besetzung der Krim kam die deutsche Regierung mächtig unter Druck von Vertretern der Wirtschaft in Bezug auf die verhängten Sanktionen gegen Russland, aber diese Auseinandersetzung ist unumgänglich und das Primat der politischen Interessen und gesellschaftlichen Werte müssen in solchen Situationen gewahrt bleiben. So wie es zur Zeit der Fall ist.

      Wir haben auch noch andere Fehler gemacht. Die wirtschaftliche Globalisierung hat eine geopolitisch multipolare Welt entstehen lassen. Nur wir haben uns nicht darauf eingestellt. Zu lange haben wir daran festgehalten, dass unsere neoliberale Politik und unsere demokratische Tradition das Muster für alle sein sollen. Nun stehen wir vor den Scherben unserer Politik und wissen kaum weiter, wenn es so aussieht, dass die Herrschaft des Stärkeren sich gegen die Herrschaft des Rechts durchsetzt.

      Welche Alternative zeichnet sich ab?

      Im Moment erscheint es, dass Russland kriegerisch die Lage zu seinen Gunsten wenden kann. Es setzt neue lokale politische Führungen in den Gebieten unter seiner Kontrolle ein, und es wird die Angriffe auf andere Teile der Ukraine fortsetzen. 14 Millionen Ukrainer sind auf der Flucht, und die Zerstörungen im Land sind enorm. Letztere kann man wieder aufbauen; aber wie die Menschen, die vor den Kampfhandlungen geflohen sind oder in ihren zerbombten Städten ausharrten, mit dem Erlebten umgehen werden, ist ein großes Fragezeichen. Wird Fatalismus oder Hass, wird aktiver Widerstand oder passive Anpassung an die veränderten politischen Verhältnisse die Langzeitfolge sein? Es ist unmöglich, dies heute vorherzusagen. Aber wie auch immer die politische Lage sein wird, sie wird geprägt sein vom Leiden, den Verlusten und den Erlebnissen der letzten Monate.

      Darüber hinaus sieht es so aus, dass es wieder eine Demarkationslinie in Europa, und wahrscheinlich in anderen Regionen der Welt geben wird. Wirtschaftlich wird es zu Entflechtungen der beiden politischen Blöcke kommen, und zu mehr Verflechtungen innerhalb der Blöcke. Globale Herausforderungen wie der Klimawandel, Pandemien, soziale Ungleichheiten werden nur sporadisch und sicherlich nicht ausreichend angegangen werden. Welche Auswirkungen diese Entwicklungen für die globale Bevölkerung bedeuten, lässt sich noch nicht abschätzen, aber eine Verbesserung des heutigen Zustandes werden sie für viele Menschen nicht bringen.

      Nun zurück zu meiner These, dass wir noch nicht alle unsere politischen Karten voll ausgereizt haben.

      Welche anderen Alternativen haben wir?

      Wie viele bin ich der Meinung, dass wir uns nicht genügend für eine diplomatische Lösung eingesetzt haben. Zu bereitwillig haben wir uns unter der Führung der USA auf eine militärische Machtprobe eingelassen, und haben andere Lösungsansätze vernachlässigt. Der deutsche Kanzler ist verstummt, nachdem Putin auf seine Aufforderungen zur Mäßigung nicht eingegangen ist. Er hat die Bewaffnung der Ukraine nur halbherzig verfolgt, übrigens ebenso wie Präsident Macron und andere europäische NATO Partner. Der Kanzler hat ein Gespräch mit Präsident Selenskyj bisher abgelehnt, obwohl er eigentlich wissen müsste, dass die Ukraine das Minsker Abkommen nicht eingehalten hat. Ein erstaunliches Eingestehen politischen Unvermögens, auch unangenehme Wahrheiten so auszusprechen, dass sie gehört werden, von den Menschen in Deutschland, in Europa, und den Führungen in Russland und der Ukraine. Zwar hat er seine Sicht der Dinge in Davos dargelegt. Die dort formulierte Vision einer funktionierenden multipolaren und globalisierten Welt ist gut, aber wie kommen wir dahin?

      Eindeutig sind wir den Ukrainern unter Präsident Selenskyjs Führung zu Dank verpflichtet. Nicht nur haben sie uns gezeigt, dass man sich gewalttätiger Politik entgegenstellen kann und muss. Sie haben uns auch eine Chance eröffnet, die augenblickliche geopolitische Krise zu nutzen, um im Geiste der Charta der Vereinten Nationen die Zukunft der Menschheit in allen Ländern zu gestalten. Aber es sieht nicht so aus, dass die Chance ergriffen wird, denn dafür müssten wir uns sehr anders verhalten.

      Es fängt mit dem Generalsekretär Antonio Guterres an. Er unternahm erst eine Reise nach Moskau und Kiew nachdem mehr als 200 ehemalige VN Mitarbeiter ihn daran erinnerten, dass er sich qua Amt aktiv einschalten muss. Seit seinem Besuch hat er den direkten Kontakt zu Moskau und Kiew wohl wieder eingestellt, obwohl es eine dringende Aufgabe wäre, die russische Seeblockade von Odessa aufzuheben, um die dort gelagerte Getreideernte zu exportieren. Die Vereinten Nationen haben solche Operationen in anderen Kriegsgebieten schon vor Jahren durchgeführt, und es gibt keinen Grund davon auszugehen, dass dies in diesem Falle nicht auch gelingen würde. Nur aktiv muss der Generalsekretär schon werden, und nicht nur die drohende Hungerskatastrophe in anderen Teilen der Welt beklagen. Russland hat in den letzten Tagen Bereitschaft signalisiert, den Getreideexport zu ermöglichen, fordert aber als Gegenleistung eine Lockerung von westlichen Sanktionen. Ich kann nur hoffen und wünschen, dass der Generalsekretär hier vermittelnd eingreift. Siegeserwartungen auf der westlichen Seite führen uns nicht weiter, auch wenn uns die Rechnung für internationale Arroganz und Überheblichkeit, die wir in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten gezeigt haben, nicht passt. Nur ein Verhandeln über Leistungen und Gegenleistungen werden uns dem Ende des Krieges näherbringen. Und nicht nur Moskau und Kiew, sondern auch Washington und Brüssel sind hier betroffen, schrittweise uns dem Ende der kriegerischen Handlungen zu nähern.

      Der euopäische Krieg hat globale Auswirkungen: die Beendigung muss global angegangen werden

      Die Mitgliedsländer der Vereinten Nationen müssen diese Krise nutzen, um die Eingriffsmöglichkeiten und die Vermittlerrolle der Vereinten Nationen in allen akuten Konfliktfällen zu stärken. Deutschland hat in den Vereinten Nationen Gewicht und ein großes Ansehen. Leider wuchert die augenblickliche deutsche Regierung nicht mit diesem Pfund. Denn unabhängig von den sicherlich wichtigen bilateralen bzw. trilateralen Initiativen seitens des deutschen Kanzlers und des französischen Präsidenten mit dem russischen Präsidenten im direkten Kontakt zu bleiben, müssen diese Initiativen unterfüttert werden mit Initiativen in multilateralen Organisationen, nicht nur in der EU, sondern auch in den Vereinten Nationen. Eine gewisse Distanz zu den USA ist dort nicht vermeidbar, aber Washington wird diese europäische Distanzierung zu den Siegesvorstellungen amerikanischer Politiker zu nehmen wissen.

      Der allseits bekannte Ausspruch von Dag Hammerskjöld, dass die Vereinten Nationen der Menschheit nicht den Weg in den Himmel bereiten, sondern den Weg in die Hölle vermeiden helfen, gilt auch heute noch. Aber im Moment bewegen wir uns eher auf die Hölle eines dritten Weltkrieges zu als zu einer neuen internationalen Sicherheitsarchitektur. Um diesen Weg in die Hölle zu verlassen, müssen wir uns bemühen, Schritt für Schritt in die andere Richtung zu gehen.

      Schritt für Schritt den Weg aus dem Krieg finden

      Einer der ersten kann und muss sein, den Export von russischem und ukrainischen Getreide in andere Regionen zu ermöglichen. Dazu braucht es eine russische und eine westliche Suspendierung von einerseits der militärischen Blockade der Häfen und andererseits der Aufhebung einiger Sanktionen, z.B. die Bezahlung des Getreides in US $ sowohl an Russland wie die Ukraine, aber mit der Maßgabe, dieses Einkommen nicht für weitere militärische Ausgaben zu verwenden.

      Ein zweiter Schritt könnte darin bestehen, dass die NATO Staaten sich verpflichten, keine weiteren Waffen mehr an die Ukraine zu liefern, sobald die russischen Truppen die Kampfhandlungen in der ganzen Ukraine einstellen, und ihre Truppen zurückziehen auf eine Linie, wo die Versorgung dieser Truppen aus Russland sicher gestellt werden kann, um so weitere Plünderungen in der Ukraine zu vermeiden.

      Der Generalsekretär und die Organe der Vereinten Nationen ebenso wie die anderer, multilateraler Organisationen (z.B. EU, Afrikanische Union, ASEAN, Arabische Liga) haben hier eine wichtige Rolle zu spielen, um diese Schritte einzuleiten, durchzuführen und damit das Vertrauen wieder herzustellen, dass Konflikte mit anderen als mit kriegerischen Handlungen und Sanktionen gelöst werden können. Wir wissen nur zu gut, dass diese eben nicht zu einer Lösung, bestenfalls zu einer Pattsituation führen. Die Pattsituation während des Kalten Krieges dauerte Jahrzehnte, eine erneute internationale Frontstellung würde vermutlich nicht kürzer sein, und würde viel Kraft (z.B. feindselige Berichterstattung in den Medien) und finanzielle Ressourcen in Aufrüstung und zerstörerische Attacken (z.B. Cyberangriffe) kosten, die wir eigentlich in andere Bereiche investieren sollten (Bekämpfung des Klimawandels, von Pandemien und sozialen Ungleichheiten).

      Nur Innovation, Ausdauer und Verständnis führen zum Erfolg

      Um diese Kehrtwende zu schaffen, brauchen wir Reformen der bestehenden Organisationen, die die jeweiligen Schritte ermöglichen und deren zügige Durchführung zulassen. Innovation, aber vor allem Ausdauer ist hier gefragt. Eines der kleinsten Mitgliedsländer der Vereinten Nationen zeigt uns hier wie es geht. Liechtenstein ist seit Jahren aktiv in Sachen VN Reform, viele der Vorschläge fanden keine Umsetzung, aber dieses Mal hatten sie Erfolg. Wenn der Sicherheitsrat in Zukunft in einer Sache blockiert ist, wird die Behandlung automatisch an die Generalversammlung überwiesen. Ein nächster Schritt wäre, wenn die GV dann einen Beschluss mit 2/3 Mehrheit fasst, dann ist dieser ebenso bindend wie ein Beschluss des Sicherheitsrates.

      In Essenz, die jetzige Krise muss genutzt werden, um die geopolitische Situation und ihre Organisationen an die Herausforderungen einer globalisierten Welt anzupassen. Deutschland als einer der größten Beitragszahler der VN, vertreten durch allgemein anerkannt hervorragende Diplomaten sollte eine deutlich wahrnehmbare Rolle spielen, um diese multilaterale Organisation für die Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts zu wappnen.

      Off to a New Beginning – Moving Beyond National Borders

      Rede OLMUN Juni 2019
      
      Ladies and Gentlemen,
      I thank you for this invitation to address you on the topic of „Off to a new beginning – Moving beyond borders.“
      Yes indeed, we need a new beginning of political and diplomatic multilateralism and find ways and means that help us address the problems which transcend national borders. We need new ways which allow us to cooperate among nations in a constructive way. To do so, we need to go back to the origins of the United Nations, we need to recall the letter and in particular the spirit of the UN Charter. Only such a recollection of the original purpose and mission will allow us to make the UN fit for today’s global and international challenges.
      
      The spirit of the UN
      
      The UN was founded in the name of the peoples of this world. According to the charter the United Nations were to free the world of the “scourge of war”, (slide) faithfully observe human rights, ensure that international law is respected, so that social progress and better living standards “in larger freedom” can be promoted. In order to achieve this the Charter states: we shall “practise tolerance”, and “live together in peace as good neighbours”. We shall “unite in order to maintain international peace and security”, and “to use armed force only in the common interest”. In addition, the Charter said that an “international machinery” should be set up, which will promote “the economic and social advancement of all peoples”.
      I am speaking today to you as a former senior UN official and not in any official capacity. This gives me the liberty to neglect to a large extent Realpolitik and share with you some bold proposals for reform. Such neglect, albeit temporary, is necessary to allow for clear thinking and to worry about the feasibility of these ideas later. In fact, I would like to strike a bargain with you: I give you some ideas, and you translate these ideas into tangible results through your deliberations and decisions at your meeting.
      
      Global Multilateralism
      
      Let me start by stating the obvious: the UN are not the only multilateral organisation which exists today. There are the International Financial Institutions – ie the IMF, the World Bank, and the IFC; WTO, the OECD, the G20 and the G7; and regional groupings like the EU, ASEAN, MERCUSOR, AU, Arab League, CIS, BRICS to mention only a few. Neither is the UN the only global multilateral organisation, e.g. the IMF is a global institution, which even has an advantage over the UN, because it has policy-based financial means at its disposal with which it can enforce its fiscal policies, without, however, always giving due regard to the economic, social and other consequences of such enforced policies. But that is another story for another occasion to talk about.
      Still, many believe that the UN is unique in spite of all its shortcomings and that it would have to be invented, if it did not exist. What then makes them unique, and which are the shortcomings which we need to overcome?
      As to the uniqueness 4 points come to mind: (slide)
      All internationally recognized nation states are members of the UN.
      They thus represent almost 100 % of the world population true to the opening statement of the UN Charter “We, the peoples of this world”.
      All member states have an equal vote whether they represent 500000 people or 1.4 billion people. The UN are thus not leaving any nation state behind in their current voting structure. Besides, the UN decision-making bodies cherish the voting by consensus.
      Foremost, however, the UN stand for a very specific thinking and a set of values. They stand for settling conflicts through negotiations and compromises, and not through wars, and the UN are built on the respect of the human rights of each and everybody.
      
      Shortcomings in today’s UN
      
      The third and fourth point lead us right into the middle of the shortcomings of the UN. Powerful national leaders of today do not think that diplomatic negotiations and compromises are valuable as political solutions, but consider deal-making and/or military action as more important. They do not believe that the rule of law and the protection of human rights are the best guarantee we have against the abuse of power and the mistreatment of people, but that the protection of self-interest should be our first priority.
      What then can be done to overcome such a philosophical divide? The short answer is, we need different political leaders, but that is easier said than done. Therefore, while we wait for having such new leaders elected, let’s review some of advice and reform proposals we might wish to give them.
      
      Participation
      
      In national democracies, we give all people above a certain age voting rights, and we establish constituencies, which represent an equal number of such voters. Hence, would we not need to introduce some differentiation to the voting system within the UN? Besides, in national elections we have political parties as a transmission mechanism between the general voting population and the eventual representation in parliament. Hence, do the governments of nation states still suffice as such transmission mechanisms in the UN? Of course, we have groupings among the member states, such as the Group of 77 and China, regional groupings, the LDCs, SLC, SIC and the like, but can we consider them to be adequate in terms of representing different interests and views among the peoples of this world? There are ideas to establish a global parliament which would have representation based on population size. Is this feasible or at least desirable as an additional UN body?
      
      Delegation of Authority
      
      In the Security Council the situation is different. There, not all 15 members are equal, although they still all have one vote. But 5 countries have a permanent seat und have a more important voting power than the other members. They can exercise a veto. When they do, this normally means negotiations stop and a planned resolution is dead, although the General Assembly can assume direct responsibility of the issue, if 2/3 of the member states vote for such an action. But let me add, it is not the veto as such which is the stumbling block, it is the fact, that such vetos are cast in an effort to block a specific view by one or the other permanent member. In particular the European members and non-permanent members of the Council have developed many informal mechanisms to work around these clashes between the US and Russia/China, the council will only develop its rightful watchdog function, and take authoritative decisions, if and when these clashes can be overcome. I shall come back to this.
      
      Global Developments
      
      In many ways, the system did hold during the decades of the Cold War, as no global military conflict erupted, but only among and within smaller nations, although in many cases these were proxy wars, having the two blocks supporting different camps from behind the scenes. Some attribute the avoidance of a global war to the existence of the atomic bomb. This threat certainly played an important role, but I believe it was also the possibility of leaders from both blocks to meet in the UN and speak freely.
      When in 1989 the Soviet Union collapsed and with it the Soviet Block, free market economies and neoliberalism became the dominant political philosophy with global free trade and large multinational corporations with direct foreign investments in many countries. At the same time the East West impasse over human rights appeared to have been overcome in the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in 1993. The UN under the leadership of Kofi Annan attempted to develop a blueprint for global development through a series of international conferences and the Millennium Summit in 2000. The aim of these conferences was to uphold human rights as the guiding value, and to create social justice while at the same time managing the use of natural resources sustainably. While all conferences ended with a consensual result, the adherence to the decisions were, let’s say, spotty. Technically all the UN summits of the 1990s adopted normative outcome documents/resolutions; some of which with mechanisms for measuring progress along agreed targets and some with binding conventions such as the CRC and some ILO conventions. In parallel there were a number of soft law agreements.
      Now, 30 years later, the ground is shifting again; but this time we witness that the UN is unable to uphold the spirit of the UN and oblige member states to stick to existing international law and the UN charter. It is not that today there are no forces within and around the UN committed to the spirit and letter of the UN charter, but political leaders, who say, my country’s interests have priority over all international and global interests and concerns, occupy the main stage of international politics. Which camp will become the decisive force and shape today’s and future world politics is too early to say. But what we most likely shall see is the strengthening of non-governmental forces, such as civil society networks on the one hand and big business on the other and many other actors in-between. They all will bring strong pressure on national governments. What will be the outcome of this interplay of different forces, let’s say in 10-15 years from now, is too early to say, but in five points I would like to summarize what the current result of this interplay of forces is:(slide)
      Neoliberalism and economic globalization have created incredible wealth concentrated in the hands of a small number of families and countries, while at the same time alleviating a great part of abject poverty. Acute income poverty decreased between 1995 and 2013, when measured at the global level, but, both in relative and absolute terms, they increased in South Asia and Subsaharan Africa, although in all regions life expectancy and educational levels were raised. These developments are coupled with the depletion of most of the planet’s natural resources beyond their capacity of renewal and are causing global warming which is as yet not under control.
      Neoliberalism and economic globalisation have promoted and even accelerated the development of new technologies, and unleashed a wave of digital applications which create unknown opportunities, but also great disparities within and among countries.
      The difference between the haves and the have-nots is growing, to an unprecedented extent. As 1% of the world’s population have the same wealth as 50 % who live on this planet, the rich perpetuate unsustainable economic activities, in particular unsustainable production and consumption and this in turn is limiting equal opportunities for an ever-growing number of people. The most dynamic among those seek opportunities for themselves and their families as migrants and often work and live under trying circumstances. With their remittances they often sustain the economies of their regions or countries of origin.
      These developments and changes in the demography create a widespread sense of insecurity and fear among many people in many countries, which in turn lead to nationalistic, xenophobic and racist political trends. We experience a growing defiance of the principles of human rights and respect for the agreements which most countries have ratified. Hundreds of human rights defenders/climate activists/journalists are imprisoned, tortured or even murdered each year.
      Since the late 1980s each year there are around 50 armed conflicts ongoing in the world, with no end to these military fighting in sight. And even, when the Security Council unites and passes a resolution to end these conflicts, little, if anything is achieved. Although we need to acknowledge that there would be an even greater number of armed conflicts, if it were not for the many UN led peace-keeping missions around the globe, the uncontrolled fighting and terrorist attacks are putting a large number of civilians in deadly danger.
      Clearly these trends are against the UN Charter.
      
      The UN response to date
      
      What have the UN, the secretariat and the member states, done to counteract these negative global trends?
      One important step was the globally led discussion through national, regional and global consultations and through the Internet, and the formulation of the Agenda 2030 with its 17 SDGs, targets and indicators, which the General Assembly approved in September 2015. The participants in these consultations were government officials, staff of NGOs and other civil society organisations, individuals of all ages, but in particular young people, pupils and students. They elaborated a social, economic and ecological blueprint for the world. If and when all goals are met, we shall live in a very different world. The agenda is transformative in nature and demands creative and innovative action in all countries. In those countries, where the UN funds and programmes and the specialized organisations like WHO, FAO, ILO are active, they assist in accelerating the transformation. In OECD and/or EU countries necessary actions are left to the national and regional authorities, but not all these countries have as yet taken the Agenda 2030 on board. Germany is just such a case. Much remains to be done in our country as in many other wealthy nations. ECOSOC and the reformed system of UN Resident Coordinators certainly have a crucial monitoring role to play and they will have to point out periodically the achievements or rather the danger of not achieving the agreed goals. But let’s also not overlook that the consensual adoption of the agenda and the 17 goals are non-binding for the member states. Is it thus only a wish list or can it or, at least, should it not be more? Although for all international treaties there are monitoring processes in place, but their power does not reach further than blaming und shaming those who do not fulfil the treaty obligations.
      
      International Cooperation
      
      It is interesting to note that international cooperation with regard to SDG 10, overcoming inequality within and among countries, has until now found the least operational attention. And yet, we do need a global policy debate, how to foster creativity, innovation, change, without, however, continuing the current practice of “winner takes all”. Innumerable studies exist about the various aspects of inequality and inequity, many proposals have been made, in particular with regard to steer funds into those countries, which are disproportionally left behind in the global economy, but I think we are not as yet addressing the root causes of such uneven developments. Getting rich may be glorious, getting super-rich and suffocating all other efforts is a problem. Being individually free to choose your own life style and course, is okay, but if we leave lots of others in the process behind, it becomes a problem. In other words, we need a global debate on how we want to balance, in future, individual pursuits and the pursuit of the common good. In academic circles the debate has begun. One very elaborate and early study is Tony Judt’s “Ill fares the Land” (slide). Of similar interest are the writings by Pickety, Stiglitz, OXFAM and others. But such academic discussions are just beginning to reach the political sphere. For instance the Economic Forum in Davos had a report from an expert group stating that the existing inequality is a major global threat, similar to climate change. The UN
      organisations, too, have done some thinking in this regard in recent years: UNRISD flagship 2010 was on inequality, UNDP, World Bank, UN women, DESA reports all have addressed this. The HLPF in July 2019 is dedicated to SDG 10. World Bank & DESA convened an expert meeting on SDG 10 in April and I hear that UNDP through its HDR 2019 will contribute to the ongoing global debate.
      It is equally interesting to note that with regard to SDG 3 health and well-being for all, cooperation within and among countries is booming, and we even have a Global Action Plan in its first phase, because of an initiative by Germany, Ghana and Norway as a result of the G 20 process. This Global Action Plan has, among others, measurable milestone targets to be reached by 2023 and an elaborate monitoring system, which shows where the gaps are between current trends and needed developments. Such global action plans, would be desirable for all other SDGs as well.
      Often the UN don’t mention the price tag which such an ambitious agenda carries. Fortunately, our colleagues from the World Bank have in this regard a sharper eye. They have calculated that over the remaining years until 2030 we are short of some 350 billion US Dollars a year. If one considers that member states spent some 1.8 trillion $ in 2018 for military purposes, a reduction of 20 % might help. Alternatively, the World Bank suggests to use Private Public Partnerships more than before. But that raises other issues.
      
      What the UN can and should do in addition
      
      Let me now turn to some of the reform steps, which need to be taken, so that international policy and politics are truly governed by the spirit and letter of the UN charter. In some ways this is the chicken – egg situation. What comes first: a change in our thinking and attitudes, or a structural reform which will change our thinking?
      Strengthening the authority of the Security Council
      Let’s take the need to reform the Security Council. In a few words: the council has to be more representative of all current member states, hence the composition has to be changed. I favour the proposal to divide the world into 8 regions and to give each region two seats. All regions shall have veto power, but a veto is only acceptable, if and when a draft resolution violates the letter and the spirit of the UN Charter. In other words: we need to define when and how a veto is permissible. If you wish to read more about this fairly radical proposal I suggest you look up the article published on my website (slide). Included in a reform of the security council should also be, that the current practice of the council to informally review many conflicts and other threats to global peace, the council members should look at issues which are global in scope and scale and threaten international peace and stability. It should be acknowledged that the council in recent years has been very active and is diligent in its review and monitoring of threats and conflicts, but little of this work is known outside the UN. This invisibility has to be overcome by focusing the council’s attention on global key issues, such as climate change and disarmament and agree on a binding decision. Germany is taking up some of these issues as a current non-permanent member of the SC and is forming coalitions with members from other regions, but it could be forceful in this endeavour. We all know that acting on article 26 of the UN Charter (slide)is long overdue, and the German initiative will hopefully contribute to change this situation. While for all the just mentioned issues separate UN bodies exist, and thev should continue to exist, it is indispensable, that the Security Council from time to time throws the spotlight on these issues, as was done some years ago with regard to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The discussions in the Security Council clearly gave the fight against this threat to the global society a big push and greater attention by all the member states. Initially HIV/AIDS was a runaway epidemic. Today we can say, it has become a partial success story. We have not yet conquered the disease, but we have contained its further spread.
      
      Making participation stronger
      
      We need to come closer to reflect the will and interest of the peoples of this world. Now, this is potentially a minefield. But, let me still throw in the following idea: A vote in the General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies should in future be valid, when more than half of all member states representing at least 51 % of the world’s population have accepted a draft resolution. This will replace the consensus mode, but does still allow for a consensual decision, too. Such a change, by many considered a breach of one country, one vote, may still help to accelerate decision-making in the UN bodies, and may encourage many more member states to deal with global issues at and through the UN in a proactive manner. It also should make such decisions binding for all member states. As you know, consensus decision by the General Assembly today remain non-binding. I would welcome if the G 20 rather than to meet separately would carry its work into the UN and would spearhead this part of the reform process.
      
      Reducing financial imbalances
      
      A related issue is whether the organisation should cap the assessed contributions to the UN secretariat at a much lower level. Currently the US pays 22% while the next largest contributor, Japan, pays below 10 % of the total budget, as do the next in line Germany, China, France and Great Britain. Russia at this moment pays around 3%. Such capping may lead to reductions in the overall income, but it may give further reforms of the UN secretariat in New York and Geneva a strong push. Basically, the secretariat should focus, as it does in the area of humanitarian assistance, on the coordination of activities by other UN organisations and serve the security council and the general assembly. Technical cooperation activities should be transferred to specialized UN organisations and thus free up the secretariat’s financial and human resources.
      
      Managing global participation better
      
      There also is a need to improve the mechanisms by which we have the peoples of the world participate in meetings and conferences. The process leading to the Agenda 2030 was a big step in that direction, but now we also have to have this participation as we implement the SDGs. In particular, we need to ensure that civil society organisations from all member states are admitted to the discussions of UN bodies. This is a tall order, and by definition, admission will have to be selective, in order to keep meetings manageable. But assuming we would admit 2 NGOs from each member state to the sessions (in total ca. 400), we would limit and expand NGO participation at the same time. However, national NGOs from smaller countries may not always be able to attend. Therefore they should be given the option to be represented by an INGOs. At present, too many NGOs accredited come from only a small number of member states, mostly Western and economically wealthy, but while not excluding these, we need to find ways and means to facilitate NGO participation from all countries in the world. In principle, civil society organisations need to be given a voice, and they need to be listened to.
      
      Strengthening enforcement capacity
      
      Most difficult is a reform that would strengthen the capacity of the UN to enforce decisions by its executive bodies, i.e. the security council and the general assembly. As such enforcement needs to be carried out by the member states themselves, we need to strengthen the authority of the UN bodies in such a way that member states have to respect the relevant decisions and feel obliged to implement them. Regional groupings, “alliances of the willing” and their political and military forces can and should serve as powerful enforcement mechanisms. The case of Kuwait after the Iraqui attack in 1991 is still a model for such collective and successful action. Why then, did we not continue to act in a similar way in Syria and Yemen? This is not the place to analyse these cases in further detail. Suffice it to say that international peace has to be secured by the member states with mandates from the UN security council. We need to reintroduce the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which we needlessly misused in the case of Libya, and we need to confirm the principle that human rights are a higher legal norm and standard than national sovereignty. To get there, we do need a different approach to solving such crises. President Truman’s statement of June 1945 during the closing session of the UN founding conference in San Francisco still holds: (slide)
      “We all have to recognize-no matter how great our strength--that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please. No one nation, no regional group, can or should expect, any special privilege which harms any other nation. If any nation would keep security for itself, it must be ready and willing to share security with all. That is the price which each nation will have to pay for world peace. Unless we are all willing to pay that price, no organization for world peace can accomplish its purpose.”
      A current case which begs for a solution along those lines is Venezuela. While it is admirable that the Norwegian government, once more, is engaged in mediating a solution, the security council should have been giving such a mediation mandate. As three of the five permanent members have vested interests in this Venezuelan conflict and have taken sides, as members of the security council they should be acting in the interest of the Venezuelan population. That, at this stage, means mediation and not taking sides.
      Furthermore, in cases of armed conflicts, like in Syria and Yemen, the council should not only impose sanctions and a weapon’s embargo from all sources, but also be able to enforce this. Monitoring alone will not suffice. It will indeed demand a military command, which is empowered by all member states, to intercept weapons’ delivery. The international justice system will need to act on those who defy a Council decision and have offenders stand trial in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and/or for genocide. In cases, where the security council comes to the conclusion that none of the warring parties can protect the civilian population within a foreseeable timeframe, the UN should be authorized to establish a trusteeship government, which temporarily will assume, under the UN flag, the public administration, while the national political camps negotiate a settlement to their conflict. In Syria, we have some elements of this solution in place, but not all. In Yemen, we are all watching more or less helplessly as this man-made disaster is ongoing, and the UN does not succeed in protecting the civilian population.
      In order to oversee such cases of a caretaker government, the Trusteeship Council should be given a revised mandate. Such cases, however, should be rare and only the last resort. The situation of East Timor, after its vote for independence from Indonesia, can serve as a model, as the UN caretaker government has produced a positive and lasting result.
      One quick word on sanctions: we need to avoid that sanctions harm the civilian population and we should through the UN make it very clear that sanctions are ineffective means to bring about regime change, and that sanctions should be based on a collective decision an not decided unilaterally.
      Radical ideas, strong networks
      These ideas are radical in the context of today’s international politics, and they require a very different political thinking, if we wish to implement them. The nation state will continue to exist, but all national leaders will have to assume their share of responsibility for international peace and peoples’ well – being everywhere. Civil society organisations have a tremendously important role to play to bring about such a change in all countries. We need networks and solidarity and we need stronger mechanisms to uphold the authority of the UN, in order to level the international playing field. When we have to criticize some of the UN actions and some of its officials, this should, we have to guard ourselves against discrediting the whole UN.
      
      4 Dimensions of reforms
      
      Each of the above proposals is related to the four dimensions of democracy, namely accountability, participation, fairness and equity. They in turn are the building blocks for people to live in “larger freedom”. You will note that I am not suggesting that there is only one political system which aligns all these building blocks properly. I think, there are many different ways by which we can use these building blocks and construct a solid democratic home in each country. How to do this, we shall leave to the people of each country, but we can from the UN side provide a helping hand to improve their respective governance system.
      
      The Way Forward
      
      Undoubtedly such UN reforms will need extensive discussions within and among the member states. Equally beyond doubt is that such reforms cannot such be left to governments and their diplomatic representatives. We need a spectrum of participants in such a reform debate, which reflects the complexity of today’s governance system with non-state actors such as NGOs, the business world, media and scientists. We have to start a process of consultations in a similar way as was done for the Agenda 2030. Fortunately, the UN charter gives us an opening for such discussions. In Article 109 (slide) it is foreseen that every 10 years a general conference should be held, which assesses whether the UN is still functioning according to the demands of the global challenges. Such a conference was never convened, but it is high time that it be held, and discuss with the same commitment, as was shown by the founders of the UN 1945 in San Francisco, how to rebuild a UN which can indeed and measureably ensure international security, peace, and human well-being for all, while fostering and relying on international cooperation and development.
      I leave it to you, the members of this assembly, to tackle these ideas and to establish a roadmap, which will get us to a new beginning. My ideas are not only meant to make the UN more effective, they reach farther than that. They push the envelope as one says. Let me close by stating the following: On the basis of my 30 years with the UN (slide), I can unreservedly say that the UN is making the life of many people better. The UN gives people hope and encouragement, and through its operational activities it supports their survival, and helps them to create better living conditions for themselves and their families. My ideas thus aim to not only recognize the UN’s soft power more widely, but also to give it some means by which hard power can be exercised in cases where international law, human rights and the well-being of people are violated. We need a UN which is not only one among many global and multilateral organisations, but we need a UN which is the flag ship for the whole fleet of all nation states and multilateral organisations, and thus for all the peoples in the world. Thank you! (slide)
      
      
      
      

      Bedrohungen für Demokratien: durch wen, wie und durch was?

      Am Anfang des neuen Jahres ereilt uns die Nachricht, dass der gescheiterte österreichische Bundeskanzler Sebastian Kurz, global strategist bei dem kalifornischen Investor Peter Thiel wird. (SZ vom 2.1.2022) Die Überschrift des Artikels lautete „Willkommen bei der Burschenschaft der Visionäre“. Angesichts der Ermittlungen gegen Kurz durch die Justiz weckte diese Überschrift mein Interesse. Denn, was bitte war am bisherigen Verhalten von Sebastian Kurz visionär?

      Wie der Artikel schnell klarstellt, es war nur eins. Sebastian Kurz verkörpert einen Politiker, der demokratische Kontrollen für anachronistisch hält und die Pressefreiheit für überflüssig. Durch seine eigenen Netzwerke setzte er sich über bestehende Regeln und Kontrollen hinweg, wenn sie seinen Machterhalt nicht dienten. Doch er ist gescheitert an denen, die diese Regeln und Kontrollen für wichtig und richtig halten. Nun sucht er den Schulterschluss mit Vertretern der Wirtschaft, die ebenso denken wie er, wie z.B. Peter Thiel. Ein Deutscher, der in Kalifornien erfolgreich in der Technologiebranche investiert hat, und zu viel Reichtum gekommen ist, den er für politische Ziele einsetzt. So unterstützte er den ersten Wahlkampf von Donald Trump, aber nicht den zweiten. Als jemand, der langfristig denkt, setzt er jetzt auf jüngere Vertreter der Republikanischen Partei, die aus seiner Sicht als eine bessere Garantie für die Realisierung seiner Vorstellungen dienen können. Eine solche Förderung von konservativen Politikern verbunden mit den skrupellosen Veränderungen von Wahlbezirken, um republikanische Mehrheiten bei Wahlen zu erhalten, und die Benachteiligungen von Wählern in armen Bezirken, die mehrheitlich die Vertreter der demokratischen Partei wählen, macht aus der amerikanischen parlamentarischen Repräsentanz der Bevölkerung eine Farce.

      Dieses Machtstreben der Konservativen gepaart mit einer unglaublichen Ignoranz anderer Gesellschaften und deren politischen Prioritäten stimmt nachdenklich und lässt die kluge und großmütige Politik der amerikanischen Regierung unmittelbar nach dem 2. Weltkrieg gegenüber Europa und Japan verblassen. Zwar war der Marshallplan weniger altruistisch als er zunächst erschien, aber diese Politik war so viel mehr der Vernunft als der heutigen „Aug um Auge, Zahn um Zahn“ Politik verpflichtet. Die amerikanische Demokratie und damit auch die demokratischen Systemen in anderen Ländern werden weniger durch autoritär regierte Länder in Frage gestellt, als vielmehr durch selbstsüchtige und kurzsichtige Interessen von nach Macht strebenden Politikern und ihren Unterstützern.

      „Zero to One“

      Peter Thiel hat seine Vorstellungen 2012 in einem Seminar an der Stanford Universität vorgetragen. Einer seiner damaligen Studenten machte detaillierte Notizen, auf deren Basis Thiel zusammen mit diesem Studenten, Blake Masters, 2014 ein Buch unter dem Titel „Zero to One.  Notes on Start Ups or How to Build the Future“ veröffentlichte. Die Grundprämisse dieses Buches ist, dass Technologie Fortschritt ist, Reichtum schafft und uns aus dem naturgegebenen Zyklus herausnimmt. Thiel postuliert, dass mit Mithilfe der Technologie der Mensch sich seine Welt selbst gestalten und schaffen kann. Er meint, nur immer neue Ideen können die Zukunft besser machen als die Gegenwart. Aber was heißt besser und was ist an der gegenwärtigen Situation nicht ausreichend? Darauf bleibt Thiel die Antwort schuldig. Stattdessen nutzt er seinen Reichtum, um die Politik in den USA mitzubestimmen, umd setzt auf neue Technologien, die ihn reicher machen, wie die Kryptowährung und die Pharmaindustrie, die psychodelische Produkte entwickelt und herstellt. Nur, schafft das eine bessere Welt als die heutige für den Einzelnen und für die gesamte Gesellschaft in den USA und für den Rest der menschlichen Gesellschaft?

      Eigentlich müssten uns die Ansichten von Herrn Thiel nicht weiter scheren, es sei denn wir sind in der start up Szene tätig. Es ist auch weniger seine unternehmerische Tätigkeit, die beunruhigt, als vielmehr seine Bemühungen, die etablierten Grenzen zwischen den Mächtigen in der Wirtschaft und den Mächtigen in der Politik zu verwischen. Deshalb holt er sich jemanden wie Sebastian Kurz, der für ihn wertvolle Kontakte in die Politik mitzubringen verspricht. Man kann nur hoffen, dass die Politiker, mit denen Kurz während seiner Zeit als Bundeskanzler im Kontakt war, heute zu ihm in seiner neuen Stellung auf Distanz gehen. Die in manchen Ländern bestehende Regel, dass ein Politiker 2 Jahre warten muss, bis er in der Wirtschaft und in anderen Bereichen wieder eine Führungsposition einnimmt, schützt vor Machtmissbrauch, und wird andernorts auch als ungeschriebene Regel beachtet. Und das ist auch gut so.

      Neue Technologien ja, aber nicht um jeden Preis

      Zwar ist die Kreativität der start up Szene sehr attraktiv, und die Politik sollte diese Kreativität schützen und, wenn möglich, fördern. Aber dennoch brauchen wir auch eine Politik, die demokratische Werte wie Fairness, soziale Gerechtigkeit, Chancengleichheit immer wieder im wirtschaftlichen Geschehen schützt und bewahrt. Auch dafür brauchen wir kreatives Denken und Verhalten. Wir brauchen eine Politik, die uns immer wieder ermöglicht öffentlich zu diskutieren, welchen technologischen Fortschritt wir als Gesellschaft als wünschens- und erstrebenswert ansehen. Vieles ist denkbar, aber muss deshalb nicht unbedingt gemacht werden. Und wir brauchen Wirtschaftsführer, die sich dem Allgemeinwohl verpflichtet fühlen, und entsprechend in ihren unternehmerischen Tätigkeiten handeln. Bei Peter Thiel sind da wohl Zweifel angebracht, und bei Sebastian Kurz auch.

      Bauen wir also unsere demokratischen Netzwerke aus, die es uns ermöglichen kreativ die Welt nachhaltig zu gestalten, so dass Armut, Hunger, Umweltzerstörung und kriegerische Bedrohungen zur Vergangenheit gehören. Wenn uns neue Technologien dabei helfen können, z.B. künstliche Intelligenz, wunderbar. Wenn nicht, sollten wir keine Energie und Ressourcen in ihre Entwicklung stecken.  Wir werden mit einem offenen demokratischen Prozess nicht im Paradies landen, aber in einer Welt, wo jeder ein lebenswertes Auskommen hat, und nicht nur eine kleine, reiche Minderheit, die uns vorgauckelt jede technologische Veränderung sei Fortschritt und zu unserem Besten.

      Die Lage der Uiguren

      Sehr geehrter Herr Botschafter Wu Ken,

      erlauben Sie mir, mich kurz vorzustellen. Ich war für die Vereinten Nationen von 1980 – 83 und von 1998-2003 in China tätig. In meiner Kapazität als UNDP Mitarbeiterin und bei meinem zweiten Aufenthalt als UN Resident Coordinator hatte ich die Gelegenheit in alle Provinzen Chinas zu reisen, und Projekte, die von uns unterstützt wurden, zu besuchen. Manchmal kam ich dabei in entlegene Gegenden, wo es damals nur zu Fuß weiterging. In diesem Zusammenhang bin ich auch mehrmals in Xinjiang gewesen, um unsere dortigen ländlichen Armutsbekämpfungsprojekte vor Ort zu sehen. Der Unterschied in Stimmung und Lage in der Provinz zwischen den frühen 1980iger und späten 1990iger Jahren war verblüffend.

      Einerseits waren die Provinzverwaltung und viele Beamte zweisprachig geworden, andererseits war die Feindseligkeit der muslimischen Imame deutlich gewachsen. Gab es anfangs der 80iger Jahre nur alte Moscheen in der traditionellen Lehmbauweise, gab es am Ende der 90iger Jahre prunkvolle Moscheen mit Ziegelsteinen gebaut; wie ich hörte, mit Mitteln aus Saudi Arabien und anderen arabischen Golf Staaten finanziert. Frauen trugen wieder Schleier und nachts hörte man auf dem Land Gewehrschüsse, die aus feierlichem Anlass in die Luft abgefeuert wurden. Auch trugen auf dem Land Männer wieder den traditionellen Krummdolch im Gürtel. Uigurische Frauen angesichts dieser Entwicklungen bevorzugten chinesische Männer als Ehepartner. Aber solche Ehen wurden von den Imamen verboten. Diese kleine Liste mag genügen, um zu zeigen, dass die Gesellschaft in Xinjiang sich entwickelte und auch weiterhin entwickelt. Nicht alle Trends gehen in die richtige Richtung. Auch ich habe während meines Aufenthalts terroristische Anschläge erlebt, die dem Verlauten der Polizei nach von uigurischen Extremisten begannen wurden. Auch ich habe die unterschwellige Wut auf die chinesischen Autoritäten gespürt, und ganz sicherlich gab und gibt es Uiguren, die eine Unabhängigkeit der Provinz Xinjiang wollen. Ich teile so die Einschätzung der chinesischen Führung, dass es in der Provinz Kräfte gibt, die die Stabilität und den Frieden der Provinz und des ganzen Landes gefährden. Ich stimme allerdings nicht mit den Mitteln, die Regierung und Partei einsetzen, überein. Vor allem finde ich die Kommunikationsstrategie in und außerhalb Chinas in Bezug auf die islamistische Gefahr in Xinjiang völlig unangemessen.

      Der Auslöser dieses Briefes ist der April Newsletter Ihrer Botschaft. Ich möchte auf die dort angeführten Argumente, die nun wirklich nicht sehr überzeugend sind, nicht eingehen. Stattdessen möchte ich skizzieren, wie man die Situation vielleicht sehr viel besser und dauerhafter in den Griff bekommen könnte:

      1. Es wäre sinnvoll, eine wissenschaftliche Situationsanalyse vorzunehmen, um darauf dann eine sinnvolle politische Strategie aufzubauen. Historisch war die islamische Gesellschaft in diesem Teil Zentralasiens/Chinas immer sehr liberal and aufgeklärt. Zurecht hat die Zentralregierung das Grabmal eines uigurischen Philosophen des 12. Jh. bei Kashgar aufwendig restauriert und wieder zugänglich gemacht.
      2. Als die Regierung/Partei in den 1990iger Jahren arabischen Ländern erlaubte, Moscheen in der Provinz zu bauen, wurde offensichtlich nicht beachtet, dass diese Länder nicht nur bauen, sondern auch ihre sehr viel dogmatischere und kämpferische Form des Islam in der Provinz verbreiten wollten. Religion ist in China Privatsache. Gut so. Aber eine kämpferische und aggressive Form religiösen Glaubens ist es nicht. Wir können davon ja auch in Europa und Deutschland ein Lied singen.
      3. Die Mehrheit der Uiguren ist an einem friedlichen Leben interessiert, insbesondere die Frauen. Die Uiguren sind ihrer Sprache und Kultur verpflichtet, und haben mit der Modernisierung chinesischer Prägung wenig im Sinn. Uiguren sind im Kern immer noch Nomaden, Viehzüchter, Händler und betreiben Landwirtschaft und Handwerk nur soweit wie nötig. Sie sind in dieser Lebensweise nicht einmalig, aber eben sehr unterschiedlich zu der Han chinesischen. Es geht also darum, einen modus vivendi zu finden, der beiden Interessen und Vorstellungen Rechnung trägt. Daran muss ständig gearbeitet werden. Aber nicht durch die Umerziehung von zig Tausend Uiguren. Ich lasse jetzt mal die Menschenrechtsaspekte beiseite. Entscheidend ist doch, einen Weg und Mittel zu finden, die zu einem friedfertigen Miteinander führen. Auch dafür gibt es erfolgreiche Beispiele; sogar gleich vor den Toren Berlins. Die slawischen Minderheiten der Wenden und Sorben haben über Jahrhunderte hinweg ihre kulturelle Identität bewahrt, und sind dennoch ein Teil der deutschen Gesellschaft geworden und haben die Herrschaft des deutschen Staates in all seinen Veränderungen über die Jahrhunderte hinweg anerkannt.

      Zum Schluss möchte ich Ihnen einen Vorschlag machen. In der Hoffnung, dass Sie den Inhalt dieses Briefes in geeigneter Form an Beijing weiterleiten, möchte ich anregen, dass die Zentralregierung mit den Organisationen der Vereinten Nationen, die in Beijing vertreten sind, vor allem aber mit UNDP in Kontakt treten, um zu sehen, in welcher Weise man an einer Änderung der Politik in Bezug auf die uigurische Bevölkerung zusammenarbeiten kann.

      Mit freundlichen Grüßen!

      Dr. Kerstin Leitner

      Multilateralismus im 21. Jahrhundert

      12 Thesen zu: Was braucht es, den Multilateralismus effektiver zu machen?

      These 1: Vor 75 Jahren wurden die Vereinten Nationen gegründet, um verheerende Kriege zur Lösung von politischen Konflikten zu vermeiden. Was 1945 Absicht war, ist heute eine Notwendigkeit. Denn heute leben etwa dreimal so viele Menschen auf diesem Planeten und die Ausweichmöglichkeiten in Fällen von militärischen Konflikten und anderen Notlagen für die zivile Bevölkerungen werden immer geringer. Flucht und Migration von Millionen sind heute gang und gäbe, unorganisiert, chaotisch und unter menschenunwürdigen Bedingungen mit hohen Zahlen an Verletzten und Toten. Bilaterale Abkommen, wo es sie gibt, reichen nicht aus. Erst ergänzt durch kollektive Konzepte und bindende Abkommen wird ein adäquates globales Management dieser internationalen Menschenströme möglich sein. Ein Konzept liegt vor in der Form des nicht bindenden globalen Kompakts zur internationalen Migration, jetzt muss es darum gehen, bindende Instrumente, neben den Flüchtlingskonventionen, sowohl für die Ursprungs- wie die Transit und Zielländer zu entwickeln. Alle Mitgliedsländer der VN sind hier in der Pflicht in der einen oder anderen Weise. Die internationale Finanzierung sollte an die Ratifizierung entsprechender Konventionen gekoppelt sein. Beschämend ist in diesem Zusammenhang, dass die Konvention zum Schutz von Wanderarbeitern und ihren Familien zwar in Kraft getreten ist, aber kein Industrieland (Zielland) zu den Ländern gehört, die die Konvention ratifiziert haben. Wie man hört aus innenpolitischen Gründen, obwohl ja gerade eine Einhaltung der Konvention die Situation in den meisten betroffenen Ländern deutlich entspannen könnte.

      These 2: Stattdessen hat die internationale Migration in vielen Ländern nationalistische politische Bewegungen wiederbelebt. Freier internationaler Handel und Erleichterungen für Auslandsinvestitionen, oft verbunden mit Digitalisierung von Produktionsstätten in den alten Industrieländern haben einerseits die Kapazität der Politik und  nationalstaatliche Autoritäten überfordert, andererseits erzkonservative Politiker an die Macht gebracht, die mit multilateralen Aktionen nichts anfangen können. Private Unternehmen sind international vernetzt, ebenso wie Wissenschaft und Forschung. Nur im öffentlichen Bereich hapert es. Dabei haben gerade die wenig geregelte Wirtschaftstätigkeit über nationale Grenzen hinweg, zu globalen Problemen geführt, wie zum Beispiel den Klimawandel und den Verlust der Biodiversität und die Verschmutzung der Weltmeere. Nur durch multilaterale Absprachen, Aktionen und bindende Abkommen, können alle Regierungen in den Stand versetzt werden zur Lösung globaler Herausforderungen beizutragen.

      These 3: Multilateralismus muss aktiv sein! Das heißt, die Mitglieder der VN wachen darüber, dass alle ihren Beitrag leisten. Die UNO ist das Sekretariat und unterstützt multilaterale Aktionen, u.U. mit gezielter technischer Hilfe. Aber die UNO ist der TÜV, nicht die Reparaturwerkstatt.

      These 4: Allerdings gehört zur TÜV Funktion, dass die UN Organisationen ständig, und für jeden einsehbar, die globale Lage beobachten und durch solides Datensammeln das Monitoring der globalen Situation vorantreiben. Zwar sollten die UN Organisationen der Custodian globaler Daten und entsprechender Datensätze sein, zu dieser Aufgabe kann aber ohne Weiteres gehören, dass sich die UN Statistiker mit universitären und anderen Forschern und Statistikern vernetzen, und deren Daten übernehmen. Im Moment sind nur einige UN Organisationen in diesem Bereich optimal aufgestellt. Das muss sich ändern.

      These 5: Ebenso muss sich ändern, dass Regierungen die Daten akzeptieren, und nicht immer gleich ablehnen, wenn diese kein gutes Bild ihres Landes darstellen. Schwachpunkte können nur dann überwunden werden, wenn sie bekannt sind. Das sollte die goldene Regel sein, auch für nationale Schwergewichte wie die USA, China und die EU.

      These 6: Wir brauchen einen Konsens, dass nicht die Größe des Wirtschaftsvolumens und die Militärmacht für die internationale Stellung/Rang eines Landes entscheidend sein sollen, sondern die nachhaltige und menschenrechtskonforme Politik, die ein Land verfolgt. Diesen Ländern sollte Führungsrollen in den UN Gremien, einschließlich dem Sicherheitsrat, gegeben werden.

      These 7: Wir müssen raus aus den ideologischen Gegensätzen, die noch vom Kalten Krieg herüberreichen. Politische und zivile Freiheiten und wirtschaftliche und soziale Gerechtigkeit sind zwei Seiten derselben Medaille.  Die Gegensätze zwischen China, Russland und den USA und ihren jeweiligen befreundeten Ländern oder Verbündeten gehören in den Mülleimer der Geschichte. Wobei es ohne Weiteres verschiedene nationale und regionale Ansätze geben kann.

      These 8: Bevölkerungsstarke Länder müssen an der Gestaltung globaler Politik federführend mitwirken, d.h. Indien, Nigeria, Brasilien, die in den nächsten 50 Jahren zu den bevölkerungsstärksten Ländern gehören werden. Maßstab für eine solche gestaltende Rolle im multilateralen Kontext muss dabei der „Schutz der Menschenrechte“ und die Politik der Nachhaltigkeit sein. Bisher sind die Regierungen der eben genannten Länder nicht durch globales und multilaterales Engagement hervorgetreten.

      These  9: Nur wenn wir in allen Ländern umdenken, werden wir es schaffen kollektiv formulierte Lösungen für globale Probleme zu finden. Internationale Politik, die auch in absehbarer Zeit von den Aktionen der Nationalstaaten bestimmt sein wird, braucht neue Leitlinien und Ansätze, die sich an Nachhaltigkeit, sozialer und wirtschaftlicher Gerechtigkeit und politischer Beteiligung orientieren. Aber auch einen zivilisierten Umgang miteinander. Den Führer eines anderen Landes als „killer“ zu bezeichnen, gehört sicherlich nicht zu einem angemessenen Umgangston und Stil.

      These 10: Erst, wenn wir dies schaffen, wird es gelingen, Realpolitik und multilaterale Politik in Einklang zu bringen. Im Moment dominieren in den multilateralen Organisationen und Gremien nationale Interessen, in Zukunft muss es aber genau umgekehrt sein. Als einen ersten Schritt sollten die Mitgliedersländer der UN, die 5 Ständigen Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrates daran erinnern, dass ihnen qua Charta eine besondere globale Verantwortung übertragen wurde. Deshalb sollten Blockaden aus nationalstaatlichem Interesse eines oder zweier Mitglieder in Zukunft nicht mehr möglich sein. Generell sollte die Erreichung der Agenda 2030 ein übergeordnetes politisches Konzept darstellen, in das sich privatwirtschaftliche und nationalstaatliche Interessen einordnen. Letztere werden dabei zu Mitteln für die Umsetzung von globalen Agenden und nicht zu Gegenkräften, die das Erreichen globaler Ziele erschweren.

      These 11: In der Übergangszeit wird es darum gehen, wirksame Kompromisse zu finden. Diese aber auch als solche zu sehen und zu verstehen. International in einem nationalen Konflikt zu intervenieren, sollte die ultima ratio sein, und grundsätzlich nur mit einem Mandat des Sicherheitsrates durchgeführt werden. Aber die langjährigen Bürgerkriege in Syrien und Jemen mit ihren internationalen Auswirkungen erfordern ein Umdenken, und ein sehr viel tatkräftigeres Eingreifen der internationalen Staatengemeinschaft als bisher. Humanitäre Hilfe für die Zivilbevölkerung, so notwendig sie ist, reicht heute nicht mehr aus.

      These 12: Um nationale, regionale und globale Schwachpunkte zu überwinden, braucht es einen besser ausgestatteten Werkzeugkasten der multilateralen Gremien und Organisationen. Ermahnungen durch den Sicherheitsrat und/oder Sanktionen allein bringen es nicht. Die Charta sieht viele Mittel und Wege vor, die bisher nicht immer ausgeschöpft worden sind, und daher wurden diese, oder auch neue, nicht auf Erfahrungen aufbauend weiterentwickelt. Zum Beispiel arbeitet der Sicherheitsrat viel zu wenig mit den regionalen Organisationen zusammen, um Frieden und Sicherheit in den Ländern, wo es eine Krise gibt, über Vermittlung oder auch durch friedenssichernde Maßnahmen, die Bevölkerung vor bewaffneten Kämpfen zu schützen. Das letzte Mal, das dieser Weg erfolgreich begangen wurde, war unter Kofi Annan in Westafrika. Aber auch Myanmar (ASEAN), Venezuela (OAS) könnten von solchen Vermittlungsbemühungen unter einem Mandat des Sicherheitsrates, Lösungen bringen, die uns heute verschlossen sind, zum Leidwesen von Millionen Menschen, in deren Namen die Vereinten Nationen vor 75 Jahren gegründet wurden.

      China – Ähnlich, und doch so anders

      Ende Oktober veröffentlichte die SZ eine Reportage ihrer China Korrespondenten Lea Deuber mit dem Titel „Wie es ihm gefällt“. Die sehr gute und anschaulich geschriebene Reportage schilderte ihren Besuch in dem Dorf Liangjiahe, in das Xi Jinping als Jugendlicher während der Kulturrevolution gesandt wurde, so wie Hunderttausende andere in andere lädnliche Gegenden, um „von den Bauern zu lernen“ wie es damals hieß.

      Heute ist dies ein Ort, wo chinesische Touristen ihrem Präsidenten „huldigen“ können. Allerdings wird nicht erwähnt, auf wessen Initiative der Ausbau dieses touristischen Ziels zurückgeht. Vermutlich ist es die Dorfgemeinschaft, die sich entschlossen hat, zusätzliches Geld durch den Tourismus zu verdienen. Es bleibt auch unklar, warum die Touristen kommen. Ist es ein Versuch der chinesischen Besucher, den für sie fernen und enigmatischen Präsidenten ein bisschen besser zu verstehen? Ihm näher zu kommen? Frau Deuber lässt ebenso ihre Motivation an diesen Ort zu reisen im Unklaren. Es gibt viele solche Gedenkorte in China. Den Geburtsort von Mao, Deng, Chiang Kai-Shek, den Ausgangspunkt des langen Marsches, um nur einige zu nennen. Warum hat sie diesen gewählt?

      Man kann es nur vermuten; denn sie nimmt ihren Besuch zum Anlass den Regierungsstil von Präsident Xi zu charakterisieren: fast abgöttischer Personenkult, Säuberungswellen, umfassende und alles erstickende Kontrolle durch Partei und Staat, Unterbindung jeglicher Meinungsfreiheit, Verhaftungen und Verurteilungen wegen „majestätsbeleidigender“ Äußerungen. Wenn man den Artikel liest, wird einem angst und bange. In der Schilderung des Besuches schimmert durch, dass einer der „mächtigsten Politiker in der Welt“, so die verantwortliche Redakteur, das Land mit alles erdrückender Macht regiert. Auch hier kein Wort der Erklärung, kein Bemühen, erst einmal zu verstehen, bevor verurteilende Informationen einstreut werden.

      Hier nun ein Versuch aus meiner Sicht und Kenntnis des Landes, in dem ich 8 Jahre gelebt und gearbeitet habe, das Regime Xi zu verstehen:

      „Mächtigster Politiker der Welt“

      Ich weiß immer nicht viel mit dieser Formulierung anzufangen, selbst dann, wenn sie auf den Präsidenten der USA angewandt wird. Worauf bezieht sich diese angebliche Macht? Auf politischen Einfluss? Der ist doch wohl begrenzt. Viele Politiker in vielen anderen Ländern sehen, den chinesischen (ebenso wie den amerikanischen Präsidenten) sehr kritisch, und keinesfalls als ein wünschenswertes Vorbild. Also, was versteckt sich hinter dieser Formulierung? Ich meine 2 Dinge: Erstens, China ist wieder auf der Weltbühne aktiv, nach etwa 150 Jahren eines Dornröschenschlafes, der für die chinesische Bevölkerung keineswegs friedlich war, sondern zeitweilig brutal und mörderisch. Man denke nur an den Bürgerkrieg in den 1930/40er Jahren und die Kulturrevolution in den 1960/70er Jahren. Die Erinnerung an letztere zeigt bis heute unmittelbare Wirkung. Denn einige der heutigen Führungskräfte, z.B. Präsident Xi, sind nachhaltig geprägt von den Erfahrungen und Erlebnissen dieser Jahre. Zweitens, China ist als Volkswirtschaft rasant gewachsen seit dem Beginn der Reformära am Ende der 1970er Jahre, und agiert heute global. Doch diese wirtschaftlichen Verflechtungen setzen die chinesische Führung mächtig unter politischen Druck, den sie nicht vollständig kontrollieren kann. Wenn ein amerikanischer Präsident Strafzölle erhebt, statt zu verhandeln, dann zeigt sich die chinesische Regierung zunächst einmal sprachlos, und ist verunsichert. Aber lange hat sie nicht gebraucht, um zu reagieren: die Entwicklung des Binnenmarktes soll die Triebkraft der Wirtschaft werden, und die Freihandelszone mit den ASEAN Staaten ein stattliches internationales Handelsvolumen garantieren.

      Xi hat hier wieder den Spagat geschafft zwischen Fortsetzung des wirtschaftlichen Reformkurses und die Wendung nach innen, um einen chinesischen Weg in die Zukunft zu finden. Ob dies im Zeitalter der Globalisierung ausreicht, kann und muss bezweifelt werden. Aber zunächst sollten wir es zur Kenntnis nehmen und nicht gleich als Streben nach Weltmacht interpretieren.

      Die Fähigkeit wirtschaftliches Wachstum und parteipolitische Kontinuität zu vereinen brachte ihn 2012 an die Macht. Der massive Machtkampf, der damals beim Übergang von Hu Jintao zu einer neuen Führung in der Partei wütete, wurde im Westen kaum wahrgenommen. Aber er stellte eine Zäsur dar, und Xi wurde als ein Garant für eine ruhigere Partei- und Staatsführung gewählt. Er war nicht kontaminiert vom „Sumpf“ des liberalen Denkens und Handelns des Pekinger Staats- und Parteiapparats, der gefühlt ewig Probleme diskutierte, sich im Westen informierte über eventuell mögliche Lösungen, und wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen verpflichtet war. Xi kam aus der Provinzführung, wo Probleme zeitnah angegangen werden. Lösungen werden in Pilotprojekten ausprobiert, Erfahrungen gesammelt, und nach einer Anpassungsphase verallgemeinert. Der Parteisekretär der Provinz und der Gouverneur halten die Zügel straff, und jeder fügt sich besser ihren Entscheidungen, oder bekommt die Macht der Führung zu spüren.

      Am Ende der 1990er und der 2000er Jahre gab es ein großes Gefälle zwischen dem politischen Stil in Peking und in den Provinzen. Uns erschien es damals, dass die Provinzführungen selbst in den Küstenprovinzen mindestens 20 Jahre „hinterherhinkten“. 2012 zeigte sich, dass wir und Peking falsch lagen. Ein Politiker, der seine Sporen in Zhejiang und Fujian verdient hatte, übernahm die nationale Führung, und die Kader in Peking zogen die Köpfe ein, verstummten zunehmend oder gingen in den Ruhestand.

      Säuberungswellen in Partei und Staat

      Es ist hinlänglich bekannt, selbst bei uns, dass es einen ungeschriebenen Pakt zwischen der chinesischen Bevölkerung und der politischen Führung gibt. Die Führung schafft die Voraussetzungen, dass jede/r einen besseren Lebensstil erreichen kann durch seine eigenen Anstrengungen, und die Bürger/innen reden der politischen Führung nicht ins Geschäft. Auf der Dorfebene dürfen die Bewohner/innen zwar ihre Vertreter/innen in allgemeinen und geheimen Wahlen wählen, aber diese Vertreter gelten nicht als Angehörige der Staatsmacht und die örtliche Parteiführung ist angewiesen, sich aus den Dorfgremien rauszuhalten. Uns erschien dies damals als der erste Schritt zu einer weitergehenden Demokratisierung des politischen Systems. Aber dies war und ist weit gefehlt. Es ist eine moderne Weiterentwicklung des vorrevolutionären Yeoman Systems, in dem lokale Großgrundbesitzer oder andere Unternehmer öffentliche Aufgaben für den Staat wahrnahmen. Es ist also eine urchinesische Lösung, auf dem Lande das Allgemeinwohl durch Selbstverwaltung zu managen. Vor 1949 wurde dieses System häufig nicht ohne erschreckende Korruption gemanagt. Heute wählen die Dörfler bis zu 70% der gewählten Vertreter wieder ab, wenn sie nicht mit ihnen zufrieden sind.

      Apropos Korruption. An der Schnittstelle zwischen Politik und Bevölkerung klappt es mit dem Pakt nicht so recht, nämlich da, wo die Staatsbeamten oder Parteikader den Bürgern Dienstleistungen erbringen müssen, also bei Genehmigungen, Zeugnissen, Bescheinigungen etc. Über Jahre hinweg, haben sich Korruptionspraktiken entwickelt, die von kleinen Gastgeschenken bis zu riesigen Geldsummen reichten. Schon in den Nuller Jahren zeigten alle Umfragen, dass die Chinesen Korruption als das größte Problem ansahen, größer als die Arbeitslosigkeit. Und das will schon was heißen. Denn die Chinesen definieren sich und ihre soziale Stellung in erster Linie über ihre Arbeit. Xi war deshalb klar, wenn er seine Machtstellung festigen und halten wollte, musste er etwas gegen die Korruption unternehmen. Und er tat es, im besten Stil eines provinziellen Parteisekretärs. Mehr als 100000 höhere Beamte wurden wegen Korruptionsvorwürfen verhaftet, angeklagt und verurteilt. Zig Gouverneure und Parteisekretäre ebenfalls. Einerseits ging ein Aufatmen durch die Bevölkerung, aber auch Angst und Schrecken bei den Kadern. Die wenigsten hatten keinen Dreck am Stecken, und fühlten sich so verunsichert. Der Antiquitätenmarkt brach zusammen (keine Gastgeschenke mehr!) und die Gastronomie litt (keine 20 Gänge Essen auf Staatskosten mehr!).

      Leider ist der moderne Rechtsstaat in China immer noch sehr schwach. Nicht alle Prozesse wurden deshalb vorschriftsmäßig geführt. Bei den Verurteilten und ihrer Entourage setzte sich so Unmut und der Verdacht fest, dass sie Opfer einer politischen Verfolgungskampagne geworden waren. Das stimmte natürlich auch bis zu einem gewissen Grad. Aber Xi ging es darum, die Korruption zu bekämpfen. Freiwerdende Stellen wurden dann fast automatisch mit Xi Sympathisanten besetzt, aber die waren vorsichtig geworden, und delegierten Entscheidungen lieber nach oben, als sie selber zu treffen. So setzte ein schleichender Zentralisierungsprozess ein, der bis heute nicht gebrochen ist.

      Tatsächlich war dieser Antikorruptionskampf fehlgeleitet. Zwar ist es unumgänglich, dass schwere Verfehlungen auch vor Gericht kommen müssen, und strafrechtlich verfolgt werden, aber es gibt systemische Probleme, die die Korruption begünstigen. Nur wenn diese ausgeschaltet sind, kann die Korruption erfolgreich bekämpft werden. Als Vertreterin der Vereinten Nationen habe ich mich damals für eine Aufarbeitung dieser systemischen Probleme stark gemacht, und über UNDP auch einen kleinen Beitrag leisten können. Aber dafür braucht es Zeit und viel veränderte Ausbildung der Kader und Beamten, die hatte Xi nicht. Er hätte sie jetzt, aber ob er die Zeit so nutzt, darüber liest man leider nichts mehr.

      Allumfassende Kontrolle der Partei

      Stattdessen lesen wir viel über die Kontrollsucht der Partei. Diese kann man nur verstehen, wenn man auch den Widerstandswillen der Chinesen berücksichtigt. Lea Deuber schrieb darüber einen Artikel, der im September in der SZ zu lesen war („Komm, den hängen wir ab“). Da Chinesen keine politische Mitsprache haben, sind viele widerspenstig und aufmüpfig. In den Jahren 2000 – 2003 gab es in China täglich etwa 400 lokale Unruhen. Das waren nicht nur Proteste und Demonstrationen, sondern es waren zum Teil recht gewalttätige Auseinandersetzungen mit der Polizei. Einmal wurde berichtet, dass ein Demonstrant einem Polizisten ein Ohr abgebissen habe. Aber auch über andere Gewalttaten wurde berichtet (Abfackeln von Polizeiautos und Dienststellen). In diesem Zeitraum appellierte der Direktor des Organisationsbüros des zentralen Politbüros, ein enger Vertrauter des damaligen Präsidenten Jiang Zemin, öffentlich an alle, Vorschläge zur Lösung bzw. Vermeidung dieser spontanen Proteste zu machen. Das Ergebnis: großes Schweigen. Als UN schlugen wir vor, das bestehende Beschwerdesystem massiv auszubauen, damit unzufriedene Bürger sich überall im Land legal wehren können gegen schlechte Behandlung seitens der staatlichen Stellen oder der Partei. Auch hierüber erfährt man nichts, wenn über China berichtet wird. Wir schlugen auch einen Ausbau des schwächelnden Mediationssystem vor. Es wäre sinnvoll und hilfreich für das Verständnis der heutigen Situation in China, darüber mehr zu erfahren.

      Viel mehr erfahren wir über die elektronischen Kontrollsysteme, Punktesysteme für gutes und schlechtes Verhalten, Gesichtserkennung, Pandemie Apps, die jede Bewegung einer Person nachvollziehbar machen. Nun bin ich kein Fan von diesen Systemen, aber auch hier muss zunächst Verstehen vor Kritik gehen. Chinesen sind notorisch undiszipliniert in der Öffentlichkeit. Schlange stehen können sie nicht, eine rote Ampel ist eine Empfehlung etc. Zwar ist das Verhalten defensiv, aber das sich nach vorne Drängeln manchmal unerträglich. In einen Zug zu steigen, kann manchmal atemberaubend sein. So viele Ordnungskräfte hat auch China nicht, um soziale Disziplin effektiv durchzusetzen. Da kamen die digitalen Systeme gerade recht. Zwar gibt es nach wie vor auch menschliche Überwacher, aber wahrscheinlich sind die ein Auslaufmodell. Auch hier gilt, die moderneren Mittel übernehmen die Kontrolle. Mich würde interessieren, was eigentlich mit all den Daten passiert, die so digital gesammelt werden? Ob sie wirklich als Instrument zur Erhaltung der Macht der Partei genutzt werden, oder aber selektiv, um Verfehlungen zu registrieren und zu ahnden? Ich glaube, unsere Aufnahme über Berichte aus China ist dominiert von unserer Besessenheit, keine persönlichen Daten irgendjemanden preiszugeben, obwohl wir es auch ständig, und manchmal, ungefragt tun. Datenschutz ist wichtig und ein hohes Gut, aber deshalb muss man nicht gleich alle bestehenden Systeme in Bausch und Bogen verdammen.

      Ein besonders bedenkenswertes Beispiel ist die Corona-App. Heute kann jeder sich  öffentlich ungehindert bewegen, wenn die App auf seinem Handy ihm/ihr das grüne Licht gibt. Gleichzeitig können alle, solange dies der Fall ist, ungehindert in Läden, Gebäuden, Züge, U-Bahnen, Restaurants und zu Veranstaltungen gehen. Lockdown war gestern, heute wird digitale Kontrolle zur Eindämmung der Pandemie eingesetzt. Schlecht oder gut?

      Unterbindung der Meinungsfreiheit – Personenkult

      Unsere Medien konzentrieren sich gerne auf die Einschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit. Die war zu früheren Zeiten auch nicht sehr groß, denn in China gelten viele ungeschriebene Gesetze, was die adäquate Verbreitung von Informationen und den Stil angeht. Das hindert Chinesen aber nicht ihre Meinung auch ohne handfeste Informationen durch Tratsch und Klatsch und Gerüchte privat zu äußern. Die sozialen Medien dienen hier natürlich als Verstärker. Ebenso wie bei uns, ist die Regierung bemüht, die Verbreitung von fake news zu unterbinden. Allerdings werden andere Kriterien angelegt als bei uns. In einer immer noch stark hierarchisierten Gesellschaft, ist das öffentliche Image eines Amtsträgers sehr wichtig. Eine Kluft, wie wir sie bei Trump erlebt haben, zwischen Ablehnung der Person und ihrem Verhalten und dem Respekt vor dem Amt, ist in China völlig inakzeptabel und undenkbar. Ein Präsident muss sich seines Amtes würdig erweisen in all seinen Handlungen und seinem persönlichen Verhalten. Je weniger von letzterem an die Öffentlichkeit dringt, umso einfacher ist es. Andererseits sind die Chinesen sehr daran interessiert mehr über ihre führenden Politiker zu erfahren. Bei langen Dienstreisen erzählten mir meine chinesischen Mitarbeiter manchmal die Details über interne und private Vorgänge an der Spitze des Staates und der Partei. Ich fragte mich immer, woher dieses Wissen kam, habe aber lieber nicht gefragt. Allerdings stellten sich später diese Gerüchte sehr oft als zutreffend heraus. Es galt also: wo Rauch ist, ist auch ein Feuer.

      Ebenso gilt in der chinesischen Gesellschaft, dass die Angehörigkeit zu einer angesehenen Familie viel Prestige bringt. Wenn man dieses Prestige nutzt, um die Führung der Partei öffentlich zu kritisieren, dann wird dies strafrechtlich unterbunden, und zur Abschreckung eine drakonische Strafe ausgesprochen. Oft erscheint dieses Vorgehen uns Nicht-Chinesen als überzogen, ist es für den Betroffenen auch. Als Abschreckung für andere sind 18 Jahre Haft für eine Kritik am Parteivorsitzenden in den falschen Medien aber wahrscheinlich wirksam.

      Der augenblickliche Personenkult ist in vieler Hinsicht für das heutige China unzeitgemäß, und viele Chinesen lächeln darüber und reißen Witze; aber er tut den meisten auch nicht weh, und so arrangiert man sich damit.

      Lage in Hongkong/Behandlung der Uiguren

      Zum Schluss noch ein paar Worte zu diesen Themen, die immer wieder groß aufgegriffen werden in den deutschen Pressemedien. Zu Hongkong habe ich schon einen Blog geschrieben, und werde deshalb nur zitieren, was meine Schlussfolgerung dort ist: Die Pekinger Regierung und die Parteispitze haben eine Chance verpasst, aus Hongkong ein Pilotprojekt für die Demokratisierung des Landes zu machen. Ich kann mir nicht vorstellen, dass China langfristig ohne allgemeine Mitsprache der Bürger seine Prioritäten richtig setzen kann. Wie diese Mitsprache organisiert wird, gemanagt wird, ist in der Tat, eine offene Frage, die selbstverständlich nur die Chinesen selber beantworten können. Aber den Turbokapitalismus einzufangen, die Entwicklung menschlicher zu gestalten, den ökologischen Fußabdruck zu verkleinern, sind die Herausforderungen, die nicht nur China meistern muss. Dazu braucht es vielfältige Beteiligung und Mitarbeit der Bürger.

      Die Lage in Xinjiang ist ähnlich verfahren wie die in Hongkong. Alles begann als Bekämpfung von terroristischen Taten. Tatsächlich gab es um 2000 herum mehrere solcher Angriffe, einige davon sogar in Peking. Aber dafür eine große Zahl von Uiguren zur Umerziehung in Lager zu zwingen, ist selbst in China verfassungswidrig. Nun ist leider ein solches Argument in China nicht so Totschlagargument wie bei uns, aber es sollte immer wieder angebracht werden. Es ist darüber hinaus ineffektiv, und die vorhandenen terroristischen Tendenzen könnten sehr viel leichter durch mehr Respekt für die uigurische Kultur und Tradition in Schach gehalten werden. Mit anderen Worten, wenn wir uns in Deutschland meinen engagieren zu müssen, dann sollten wir die Ursachen für diese Konflikte kennen, und eine Zusammenarbeit zur Lösung unter voller Beachtung der Menschenrechte anbieten. Leicht ist es nicht, solche Lösungen zu finden. Mitzudenken und daran mitzuwirken schon. Wenn VW und andere Firmen in Xinjiang in unmittelbarer Nähe der Umerziehungslager produzieren dürfen, dann sollte eine politische Zusammenarbeit zur Herstellung einer verfassungskonformen Situation auch möglich sein.

      Grundsätzlich gilt, dass die chinesische Führung ungleich mehr über Deutschland weiß und versteht, als wir über sie und China. Zwar gibt es auch auf chinesischer Seite viele Missverständnisse über uns, aber unsere sind weitverbreitet, da wir ja eine freie Presse haben, die berichtet. In Zeiten der Globalisierung geht wirtschaftliche und politische Abschottung gar nicht, und nur, wer den anderen versteht, kann erfolgreich eine Partnerschaft bilden. Wenn China ein wichtiger Partner für uns ist und bleibt, müssen wir verstehen, wie das Land tickt. Nur dann können beide Seiten erfolgreich sein.