Challenge of ushering international peace

The UN has freshly prioritized the ushering of international peace as one of its foremost tasks in the days ahead and sensible sections the world over are likely to back it overwhelmingly in this historic undertaking. There is no doubt that those quarters that are sensitive to the constantly rising human costs of war and conflict would render to the UN chief and his team their unwavering support in bringing into being a less conflict-prone world.

The time is now, to stand up and be counted in this UN-inspired momentous exercise. Brought down to its essentials, the challenge consists in the world opting fully for value-based international politics and conduct rather than remain mired in Realpolitik, which has time and again proved to be the key to world disunity and war.

Although much will depend on how the world’s foremost powers act in the face of this principal challenge, the obligations devolving on lesser powers in this connection are no less important. Put simply, big or small, states need to sue for international peace without hesitation, prevarication or delays. In other words, the world needs to be of one resolve in the face of the prime challenge of bringing international peace.

The UN General Assembly vote last year in the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, decrying the Russian action, proved a considerable eye-opener. The Russian ‘special military operation’ was revolting in the extreme and violated all the tenets of acceptable international conduct by states but there were quite a few countries that refused to forthrightly condemn the Russian-inspired outrage. Among those countries that preferred to refrain from condemning the Russian invasion in the guise of ‘neutrality’, were states whose policy positions have a close bearing on international peace and wellbeing.

However, in the days ahead, a refusal by states that matter to opt for peace is likely to gravely hamper the UN’s push for world harmony. It could not be stressed enough that the world is badly in need of political leaders who are inspired by the vision of a war-free world. Without a singular vision of this kind, world peace would continue to be a chimera.

Decades into the post-World War Two international political and economic order and the ushering of the UN, the world remains divided on the question of the utmost sacredness of life. Not everyone believes in the virtue of revering life. That is, value-based politics remain a distant prospect. Narrowing this great divide in perception and policy remains a principal challenge for the UN.

As the international community takes on the challenge of prioritizing peace, there is no doubt that it would be taking complete cognizance of the fact that not all world leaders could be counted on to be guided by rationality and a sense of humanity in their international conduct. In contemporary times, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is solid proof of this. The Ukrainian civilian death toll speaks for itself. People of conscience are rendered speechless by the devastation that has been visited on Ukraine by the Putin regime of Russia. A modern day ‘Massacre of the Innocents’, one is compelled to comment.

However, the ‘New Agenda for Peace’, expected to be announced to the world in the near future by UN chief Antonio Gutterres is, without doubt, one of the most momentous developments in contemporary times. The document will reportedly outline the UN’s ‘work in peace and security’, besides setting out a comprehensive approach to preventing war, ‘linking peace, sustainable development, climate action and food security’, while addressing other matters that are of the first importance to the world.

This is as it should be. In its essential substance, the UN vision is a recognition of the causal link between economic realities and war and conflict. For example, social tensions heighten and get out of control when a country’s food needs and security are neglected by its rulers. In fact, it is sustainable development that needs to be aimed at and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are basically all about a country generating economic growth that would be autonomous, self-sustaining, equitable and least dependent on external inputs, such as, foreign aid and assistance, which are a recipe for perpetual dependence on external forces and entities; that is, ‘dependent development’. The latter phenomenon illustrates Sri Lanka’s present situation.

Getting ruling elites and their leaders the world over to enduringly revere life and protect peace could prove an uphill challenge for the UN and other international actors that prioritize peace but these latter institutions could support and strengthen human rights bodies and peace movements, for example, within those states that have proven guilty of violating international law and undermining world peace.

The UN could also initiate measures to isolate these violators of International Law from the rest of the world community, while subjecting them to increasing economic and other material sanctions. Continuous moral pressure could be brought on them as well, with a view to inducing in them acceptable pro-peace conduct.

However, it is also of the first importance for the international community to resuscitate efforts to reform the UN system and take the process to its logical conclusion; that is, a broad-basing of the UN Security Council. It ought to be plain to see that as it stands today, the UNSC is not fully representative of the global power system. For instance, powers such as, India, Brazil and perhaps South Africa ought to be permanent members of the UNSC but this order of things is hardly being looked at by the present permanent members of the UNSC. Considering the current highly unrepresentative nature of the UNSC, India could be said to be having a case when it calls for expeditious UN reform.

It could be found that progressive, democratic changes in the international power system are closely bound-up with and symbiotically linked to self-sustaining, equitable development within countries. Domestic programs aimed at the latter would come to full fruition only when the international political and economic system is further democratized and all regions of the world have a voice in the running of the UN-helmed international order. Thus, progressive sections of the world have their work cut out.