UN Unfit For Purpose

After the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was set up in the hope that it could prevent further terrible conflict. A Security Council was appointed to specifically oversee areas where potential warfare could break out. The five permanent members of that council - the five main victors in World War II - were the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Russia and China; each of the permanent members was granted the power of veto, so that any military intervention would require the consent of all five countries. These were noble aspirations of introducing democracy into scenarios of violence during a period of difficult political and social reconstruction. Unfortunately, the long passage of time appears to have rendered these constructs unworkable. Syria is a country in chaos. The UN estimates that around 9,000 people have died since pro-democracy protests began in March 2011. Regardless of a recent UN-brokered ceasefire, lethal aggression is continuing; this week an explosion in Hama took more innocent lives. France is now saying that the Security Council should consider the use of force in Syria as the peace plan is failing. Britain and the USA (although preferring to be non-interventionist) would almost certainly be willing to go along with using force as a last resort which we now must have reached. Yet the force option will probably not go ahead due to the veto of the other permanent members. Russia and China have their own agendas: they are anti-American (just watch the Russia Today news channel and see that every other story is slating the US!); they are worried about sacrificing their own economic deals (i.e. oil) that they have previously brokered with the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, as then they would have to share the spoils with other world powers; and they are concerned about losing dominant influence in a prime political area. Basically, Russia and China are gladly putting their own nationalistic egos first, and genocide a distant second. Shame on them, eternal shame.

Unnecessary Aid

Today the Minister for Defence, Dr Liam Fox, had an email leaked which stated his opposition to the budget for overseas aid becoming set in law at 0.7% of Britain’s gross national income. Downing Street is seemingly disgruntled by this leak, but I have to ask the question: why shouldn’t Dr Fox voice this objection? It seems perfectly reasonable to me when virtually all other government departments are having to cut their budgets due to the deficit crisis. Since when is international aid considered to be so much more important than domestic affairs? The only other main department which is being financially ring-fenced is health, but even that is having to endure the prospect of radical right-wing reform. And overseas aid from Britain was only 0.52% in 2009, so apparently other countries are worthy of a budgetary increase in these fiscally restrictive times!
Another serious problem occurs when we consider which countries are getting most of our aid. If I were feeling flippant, I would say that Pakistan doesn’t deserve much at the moment after having singularly failed to detect Osama Bin Laden’s fortified compound for over five years! But unfortunately, there is a much more disturbing receiver of British taxpayers’ money: the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’ve half a mind to put the word Democratic in inverted commas, because the continuing sexual violence that takes place by militias in that country is probably the worst in the world; and recent wars in DR Congo have created the deadliest conflict since World War II, with 5.4million people being slaughtered. Why should they get any of our money?!
Finally, Britain now spends more on international development than on the environment, energy and sport combined (and that’s with the Olympics approaching!). And even though 0.7% is the figure that has long been favoured by the UN, it is not implemented by many countries. The US, the richest country in the world, only provides 0.21%, and Italy can only be bothered to contribute 0.16%, so why should we have to foot the bill? Therefore I think Dr Fox is absolutely correct to raise this issue, as many more people should in the near future.