I-Introduction

Every year in September the UN opens a new session of itsGeneral Assembly by inviting heads of state or other high officials of the 193 member states to make a speech to the General Assembly. This year once again many heads of state made their presentations to the UN. Several of the speeches were notable or contained significant aspects highlighting the challenges that the UN will face in the upcoming year.(Some examples this year included Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, Syria, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Russia.)

This year, at the opening of the 68th Session (September 2013-September 2014) of the UN General Assembly in NY, however, what stands out is that there were remarkable development taking place at the UN but for the most part recognition of what was going on was only occasionally reflected in the speeches by the heads of state or other government officials from the many nations of the world, which were ongoing at the time in the General Assembly Hall.

One of the occurrences that provided a clue that something important was happening, was the cancellation of the speech by the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, though the significance of the cancellation could not be understood at the time. Two weeks later, however, the factors underlying this cancellation became more evident.

On Thursday, October 17, the General Assembly voted to elect five nations to serve on theSecurity Council for the 2014-2015 two year period. Saudi Arabia won one of these seats in an unopposed election. The Kingdom had prepared for this victory by providing its diplomats with training in diplomacy at Columbia University over the preceding year. In his initial response to the results of the election, Ambassador Abdallah Al-Mouallimi, Saudi Arabia’s UN Ambassador, welcomed the news and saw it as a support for Saudi Arabia’s, “longstanding policy in support of moderation and in support of resolving disputes in peaceful means.” He was looking forward to the coming two year participation in the Security Council.

Suddenly, however, something changed. The following day, Friday morning, October 18, news reports announced that the Saudi Foreign Ministry had issued a press statement that the Kingdom would not accept its seat on the Security Council. The Saudi Arabian statement attributed its decision to the failure of the Security Council to deal with several issues, one of which was the Syrian conflict. The press statement indicated that Saudi Arabia would not fill its seat on the Security Council, but no official notice was given to the UN so that the seat would be left in limbo until such time as an official notice would be forthcoming.

Surprisingly, as the Russian Foreign Ministry noted, the Saudi statement came at a time when the Security Council had recently passed a significant resolution, Security Council Resolution 2118, on the Syrian conflict. The resolution supported the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons and called for the convening of a Geneva 2 conference with the goal of negotiating a political settlement to the Syrian conflict. The Resolution included sections requiring the cooperation of the Syrian Government and sections requiring cooperation by the insurgents and by other nations prohibiting them from providing any side to the conflict in Syria with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. (Section 18 of SC Resolution 2118)

In order then to understand the significance of events occurring at the UN in September and October, it will be helpful to review the events of late August and early September which made it possible for the Security Council to pass Resolution 2118.

II-Background

The historian Bruce Cumings has noted, ever since the US participation in the Korean War, more than sixty years ago, the US Presidency has violated its constitutional obligation to refrain from foreign military intervention unless the US Congress issues a declaration of war. Also the US military intervention in the Korean War and in other situations including Iraq, came before the UN Security Council had passed a resolution authorizing such intervention. Given this background, what happened in August represented an important change from previous practice.

In March 2013, the Syrian Government had asked UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for a UN investigation into what it believed to have been a chemical weapon attack by insurgents on civilians in the town of Khan al-Assal. The Secretary General initially agreed to such an investigation but quickly changed his mind under pressure from some western nations. These western nations claimed that there were several other examples of previous chemical weapons attacks that had to be investigated if the UN was to investigate the Khan al-Assal incident. Later Angela Kane, the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs would express her regret that the UN did not investigate the Khan al-Assal incident immediately as requested. (See Cory Leonard, “Missed Opportunity in Syria Haunts UN Official”, New York Times, October 2, 2013)

Instead, in response to a request from Syria, the Russian Federation carried out an investigation into the Khan al-Assal incident. A Report on the investigation was presented to the UN. The Report, according to news sources, stated that there had been the use of chemical weapons and it was likely that insurgents were responsible. Based on the Report on the Khan al-Assal incident by the Russian Federation, the UN finally agreed to send a team of investigators to Syria to carry out a UN investigation. The team was also to investigate two other allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria made by western nations. The team went to Syria in late August.

Shortly after the team headed by the Swedish scientist, Dr Åke Sellström, began its work in Damascus, a new incident was reported on August 21 alleging the use of chemical weapons. Insurgents blamed the Syrian Government for the incident. The Syrian Government denied any responsibility and blamed the insurgents for whatever had taken place.

III-Looking for a Pretext?

The UK and US governments accused the Syrian government of having carried out the attack. Dr. Sellström and his team of investigators were directed by the UN Secretariat to stop their other work and to investigate the new incident. The information gathered in their investigation would be analyzed and a report was to be issued determining whether or not chemical weapons had been used in the August 21 incident.

The US government and the British government prepared to bomb Syria using as a pretext the alleged chemical weapons attack. It didn’t seem to matter to the leaders of these two nations that there was a lack of evidence of the crime they were accusing the Syrian government of committing.

But then something happened which stopped these governments from carrying out their attacks.

IV-Citizens and Netizens Express Their Opposition

Citizens first in the UK and then in the US, made clear to their respective governments that they were opposed to the UK and the US carrying out such threats. The US Constitution has a provision requiring a Congressional Declaration of War before the US government takes military action against other nations. The UK Parliament took up to assert its power to stop the UK government from attacking Syria. And the UN Charter includes a provision that a nation must go through its constitutional and legal processes before taking military action in response to a UN resolution calling for the use of force. (UN Charter, Article 43(3)) In this situation, citizen actions and legislative action provided an effective challenge to the threats of their governments carrying out bombing attacks against Syria.

In the US, not only had opinion polls registered an overwhelming rejection of the US government’s plans to bomb Syria, but also the public bombarded US government officials with letters and phone calls opposing any bombing. Documenting their discontent with the US government threats against Syria, netizens wrote in online discussions registering their opposition.

One such online discussion was in response to an article posted at the web site of a US TV news channel, NBC describing how Congressional leaders in the US advised the US President that he had to “sell the war” more effectively to the American public before the US Congress would vote in favor of a declaration of war against Syria to authorize a bombing attack.

In response to the article, there were almost 2000 online comments, most of which were opposed to the US government taking any military action against Syria, and calling for the US government instead to spend its resources on improving living conditions in the US
Also people posting online pointed out that only if a nation is attacked, does it have a right to respond with a military defense and that no such attack had occurred against the US.

Along with many general comments, some netizens posted examples of letters they were sending to their Congressional Representatives or to the US President.

For example, one netizen wrote:

“Mr. President, we trust you will not be misled by faulty intelligence as we have experienced in past wars to our horror. The intelligence notes do not give any irrefutable evidence, they only say: It’s most likely President Assad’s forces are responsible…. Find the hawks who wrote the intelligence.

Let’s await the final result of the U.N. inspectors’ investigation we requested. If they confirm the chemical weapons were provided by Assad’s enemies and detonated by rebel terrorists, would you authorize cruise missiles to remove the rebels?

Geneva has already prohibited use of chemical weapons, please try to use your influence in the U.N. to also ban the manufacture and storage of such sick weapons of destruction of any country.” PJuliett

A similar letter sent to a US Senator was posted in response to an article on the Guardian web site. The letter says:

“Dear [Senator]

I’m writing to express my profound dismay and disgust at the United State’s threat to [intervene in Syria] It is absolutely unjustifiable in terms of U.S. National interest (interests of actual U.S. citizens, and not our political class, political and media elites, defense contractors, or high-ranking members of the armed forces) and it would be contrary to international law…to attack, w/o provocation – another sovereign state.

I hardly expect President Obama to even ask for the Senate to authorize military action against Syria, but should he, and should you vote in favor of such action…I will make it the expressed-purpose of my involvement in political activism in the future to support any and all campaigns against you and your colleagues who’d [support] this criminal intervention in Syria….”

In response to such sentiments from US citizens and their effect on the US Congress, the US government withdrew its bombing plan, and instead entered into an agreement with the Russian Federation to support Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the UN agreed to support Syria’s efforts to destroy its chemical weapons.

Considering the danger of such weapons coming into the control of the insurgents attacking the Syrian government and people, and other reasons Syria’s President Assad explained in interviews, Syria’s decision to destroy its chemical weapons is understandable.

V-SC Passes Resolution 2118 on Syrian Conflict

This background helps to explain why during the week of September 23, 2013, when the heads of state of nations around the world came to speak at the opening of the UN General Assembly, actions were being taken by the UN Security Council to approve a resolution in support of the OPCW activities agreed to by the US and the Russian Federation. This resolution was passed by the UN Security Council on Friday, September 27 at a meeting attended by the Foreign Ministers of several nations, including the US and the Russian Federation.

The resolution also called on the parties to the conflict in Syria and the nations in the surrounding area to meet in Geneva to work out a political settlement for the conflict. The principles agreed to at a prior Geneva meeting in 2012 were to guide the Geneva 2 meeting. The communiqué proposes to facilitate “the launch of a Syrian-led political process leading to a transition that meets the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people and enables them independently and democratically to determine their own future.” (See SC Resolution 2118, annex 2)

VI-Contradictions Exposed by Netizens

Opposing these principles, however, a number of insurgent groups declared that their fight is for a religious state observing Sharia law. They announced that were opposed to any negotiations to create a democratic inclusive state.

In response to the Saudi claim that it wouldn’t accept the Security Council seat it had campaigned for and won, most mainstream media accounts mainly repeated the reasons Saudi Arabia gave for its action. Comments among netizens, however, helped to explore the contradiction represented by a nation involved in arming and training foreign mercenaries to fight in Syria, to then take a seat on the Security Council claiming the seat as a reward for its policy of moderation and the peaceful settlement of conflicts. (See for example the discussion on the MoonofAlabama blog post on October 18, 2013)

Also netizens at other web sites responded to the press release by Saudi Arabia that it would not take its seat on the Security Council. For example, one netizen writing at the Guardian website wrote:

“Saudi Arabia is rejecting its seat on the UN security council and says the 15-member body is incapable of resolving world conflicts.

Incapable of resolving world conflicts that Saudi Arabia is funding, should that read?” Bawbag McWimowe

Another commented sarcastically:

“When I sponsor a group of religious extremists to destabilize a country and ethnically cleanse or mass murder various religions or sections, I too go crying to the UNSC when they start losing….” Sorcey

Another wrote:

“After putting down their own rebellion and the one in Bahrain violently, and after spending billions of dollars on overthrowing the Syrian government and destroying the country in the process, the Saudi’s have the utter gall to refuse their ‘elected’ seat at the UN, citing the organisations inability to solve the conflicts they started.” Gibbon

Such comments demonstrate that involving people around the world in the considerations of what is happening at the United Nations is helpful in broadening the perspective of the barriers to what is blocking the resolution of a conflict.

Though Saudi Arabia is complaining that it can’t take its seat on the Security Council in part because the US and UK did not carry out a bombing campaign against Syria after the August 21 incident, an incident which has not been officially attributed to any party, the fact remains that the US and the UK were discouraged from their plans to carry out the bombing by the overwhelming public sentiment in both countries against such military action.

Saudi Arabia is a monarchy. A monarchy traditionally has little obligation to consider the views and concerns of its people. The UN Charter, however, requires that the decisions it takes regarding the use of force by nations are carried out in accord with the constitutional and legal provisions of those nations (See Article 43(3))

Saudi Arabia’s desire to have the UN Security Council support the bombing of other nations, like for example Syria, is contrary to the Charter of the UN. Not only was there no decision of the nations of the Security Council to bomb Syria, but the people of the UK and US made clear their opposition to any such decisions on the part of their governments.

The UN Charter which came into force on October 24, 1945 proclaims that “We, the peoples of the United Nations determined…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained…have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these ends….”

The decisions made by the UN should in fact take into account the views and concerns of the people around the world. It can be argued that the UN will be able to function in a more consistent way when there is much discussion and consideration by people around the world of the issues being raised at the UN.

The actions of netizens following, analyzing and discussing the activities of the UN and especially of the Security Council, are a sign for optimism that the future decisions made by the UN will be more in line with its charter to forge a peaceful world than is possible if power politics is allowed to prevail.

The decision of the Security Council to pass SC Resolution 2118 to support the work toward a political solution to the Syrian conflict, is an important decision. The actions of netizens, especially in the US and UK in August 2013, helped to set a basis for a recognition that the peoples of the world want a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria, not one brought about by foreign intervention and the funding and training of mercenaries or the bombing of a sovereign nation. Hence the actions at the UN in September and October of 2013 represent an important step toward the fulfillment of the obligations of the UN Charter.

Ms. Ronda Hauben is one of the frequent contributors for The 4th Media.