Ny brutal brutal offensiv med fordrivelse af folk i det nordlige Gaza, død og ødelæggelse ruller over Libanon og mellem Israel og Iran. Er meningen med Netanyahus krige at få Trump til magten? Mere om dét i mit indlæg i Altinget forleden
Vesten har et medansvar for, at autokraterne i Beijing, Moskva og Teheran i dag står tættere sammen
Behovet for dygtige diplomater til at standse krigene i Mellemøsten og Ukraine og for at undgå en ukontrolleret optrapning mellem USA og Kina er overvældende, skriver jeg om i min seneste klumme i Berlingske. Læs i avisen – eller nedenfor:
Der er brug for at få ordentlige diplomater til stede
I 2015 blev jeg valgt til formand for FN’s generalforsamling med opbakning fra USA. Det undrede mange herhjemme, der har beskyldt mig for at være antiamerikansk.
Ja, jeg var indædt modstander af Vietnamkrigen og stærkt kritisk over for de talrige amerikanske interventioner mod folkevalgte regeringer under Den Kolde Krig – for eksempel Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) og Chile. Socialdemokratiet stemte med mig som formand mod dansk deltagelse i George W. Bushs invasion i Irak i 2003.
Mine synspunkter var imidlertid ikke i modstrid med holdninger hos daværende præsident Obama og hans udenrigsminister, John Kerry.
Jeg optrådte i 2016 sammen med Kerry i et møde med afgangselever fra FN-skolen. Mange af dem diplomatbørn og selv kommende diplomater. Kerry sagde til dem: »Jeg kæmpede i Vietnam. Det var en krig, der aldrig skulle have været ført. Hvis der havde været ordentlige diplomater til stede, var det ikke sket.«
Jeg nævner dette, fordi behovet for dygtige diplomater til at standse krigene i Mellemøsten og Ukraine og for at undgå en ukontrolleret optrapning i modsætningerne mellem USA og Kina er overvældende.
Den første forudsætning for at give diplomatiet plads er valgsejr til Kamala Harris. Trumps bombastiske politik og planer om udrensning i diplomatiet øger risikoen for krig ved en fejltagelse.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen argumenterede for at deltage i Irak-invasionen med, at han mente, at det altid var i Danmarks interesse at følge den til enhver tid siddende amerikanske præsident.
I dag ved vi alle, at begrundelsen for invasionen i Irak var falsk, og konsekvenserne blev katastrofale. Konsekvensen i Foghs holdning må vel være, at han også ville være gået med USA’s krig i Vietnam, hvis han havde været statsminister dengang.
Jeg mener, modsat Fogh, ikke, at Danmark ukritisk skal følge USA, uanset hvem der er præsident, og uanset hvor USA vil have os hen. Vi skal have en selvstændig holdning og analyse. Derfor burde vi for eksempel have deltaget i Afghanistan på samme måde som de andre nordiske lande, Frankrig og Tyskland – og ikke rykke ud til de blodige kampe i Helmand-provinsen.
I nutiden er det Danmarks moralske forpligtelse at fordømme Netanyahus fortsatte krigsførelse og krigsforbrydelser – og at være kritisk over for, at USA ikke stopper for vanviddet.
Vi skal fortsat af al kraft støtte Ukraine. Vi skal bidrage til enighed med vores allierede om, i hvilket omfang offensive våben skal bruges mod mål inde i Rusland – og hvornår diplomaterne skal i gang med finde vejen til at standse krigen.
Det formodes, at en præsident Harris vil gå væk fra Bidens højstemte opdeling af verden mellem demokratier og autokratier. Der er langt flest autokratier, og vi ved jo godt, at Vesten har interesser i at samarbejde med en række af dem, selv om vi af og til må holde os for næsen.
Henry Kissinger havde meget på sin sorte magtpolitiske samvittighed, men han så USA’s interesse i at svække Rusland ved at forsone sig med Kina.
I dag er Vesten ikke uden medansvar for, at autokraterne i Beijing, Moskva og Teheran står tættere sammen.
Kina har ikke ønsket Ruslands krig mod Ukraine. Men USA’s fjendtlighed tilskynder Kina til samarbejde med Rusland, uanset at det kan skade landets vigtige forhold til Europa. Før vi går op i tonelejet mod Kina, bør vi tænke over, hvor meget mere Kina egentlig hjælper Rusland, end Indien gør: Begge lande køber billig olie fra Rusland og deltager – desværre – lige så lidt som resten af det globale syd i Vestens sanktioner mod Rusland.
Iran er den erklærede store fjende af USA og Israel – og Netanyahu forsøger i disse dage at vikle USA ind i krig mod Iran. Det usympatiske præstestyre undertrykker sin befolkning, har krigeriske allierede i regionen og sælger krigsdroner til Rusland.
Men præstestyret er ikke en monolit. For ni år siden var mere moderate folk i spidsen.
Jeg lærte i FN den daværende iranske udenrigsminister Javad Zarif at kende. Sammen med USA’s John Kerry fik han den internationale aftale på plads, der bremsede Irans vej til atomvåben og fjernede handelssanktionerne mod landet.
Tilskyndet af Netanyahu rev Trump atomaftalen i stykker. Det bragte meget mere dystre kræfter til magten i Iran.
Imod den krigeriske øverste religiøse leders ønske valgte iranerne i denne sommer overraskende en ny præsident, der forsigtigt rakte en hånd ud om afspænding med Vesten. Den ny præsidents kampagnechef var Zarif, der nu er tilbage i regering. Desværre har ingen dygtige vestlige diplomater fået lov at gribe og teste denne hånd.
Mogens Lykketoft er fhv. minister og formand for Socialdemokratiet
Indlægget blev bragt i Berlingske 11. oktober 20024
Mere fra min hånd om diplomati
United Nations in the Web of Power Politics
Presentation by Mogens Lykketoft at the opening of International Progress Organisation’s roundtable discussion in Istanbul, september 2024.
(Min tale ved åbningen af International Progress Organisations møde om FN’s rolle i verden i Istanbul september 2024).
Presentation:
Ladies and Gentlemen. During a lifelong interest in international affairs, I have always hoped to see nation-states further commit themselves to the UN system and the respect of international law and conventions. Therefore, it was a great honor and experience to serve as the 70th President of the United Nations General Assembly, 2015-16.
Our roundtable today will focus on the limitations of global order and lack of equality among nation states in the UN system, due to the veto power and impunity of the P5 in the Security Council.
But first, let us not lose sight of the gains we have achieved for civilization through the creation of the UN system:
It is the first time in human history that we have succeeded in creating a permanent forum of some influence where (almost) all governments are present and talk to each other.
Yes, the Security Council has, on account of a veto from one of the Permanent Five (members), P5 – all too often been blocked in efforts to end conflicts. But even so, since 1945 the UN has played an important role in assisting avoidance of direct military conflict between superpowers with nuclear weapons.
Remember too, that back then, the power of veto was seen as a precondition for keeping the mightiest members inside the tent, so to speak – contrary to what happened in the League of Nations. And importantly: The UN is much more than the Security Council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (UNGA) – its 50 associated units have produced plenty of results and recommendations, which have contributed to important progress for humanity. For example, the World Health Organisation has, in my lifetime, been instrumental in increasing the average living age on the globe by twenty years.
But it is a fact that, except for a few times in the first years after the end af The Cold War, the Security Council did not fulfil its obligation and live up to the high ideals of the charter.
Therefore, the majority of the 188 other member states have become increasingly impatient with the P5’s privileges: Their reaction has been to try to attain more authority for UNGA itself, and put further pressure on the P5 by closer cooperation among the non-permanent members of the UNSC. In this context, being President of the General Assembly is not just an honorary position; it is a central position as negotiator to increase that exact pressure on the P5.
I was able to change the selection procedure for the appointment of Secretary General. Each candidate had to present his or her vision and programme and take questions from the entire GA as well as from civil society. This new process made it very difficult for any of the P5 to ignore the candidate that was preferred by most member states. The SG is no longer decided in last minute compromise in a smoky backroom by 2 or 3 of the P5. That may pave the way for Secretary Generals being less dependent on the P5.
I was also called upon push for reform of the SC. But – very predictably – that dossier could not be moved forward. It stalled yet again, as it it has done in the past forty years, because the Charter demands a majority in the GA of 2/3 including the P5.
But we did get some idea of what might be possible – or the opposite – on a good day:
It is broadly agreed that the number of GA-elected members in the SC should increase – perhaps by another five members – especially from the global south to make the SC more representative of our world today. There was also some sympathy for giving access to unlimited reelection – theoretically opening for a de facto increase in permanent presence.
But neither the US nor China or Russia are willing to give up their veto-power nor grant it to other countries. Old ideas of elevating specific larger countries to permanent membership meet different opposition. Spanish-speaking Latin-American nations do not support Brazil, China is against Japan. India is opposed by Pakistan and other neighbors. Southern Europe does not support Germany. African member states cannot agree on one or two among them as eligible permanent members.
Beside calls for reform of membership and voting rules in the SC there is a strong demand from the general membership to commit the P5 to restrain their use of veto and be obliged to explain any veto that they put down to the General Assembly. This demand for explanation has recently been adopted in the GA in the hope that the rest of us gain more moral leverage against the use of veto, if able to argue against it in a more united fashion.
Other proposals with considerable support among member states have been circulated trying to commit the P5 to promise not to veto actions to stop crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide – but without success.
Despite continued deadlock on reform of the Security Council, the UN moved the general global agenda in a better direction in 2015.
But from 2016 we were turned backwards again.
We got the Iran nuclear deal through consensus between Iran and all the P5 plus Germany, the EU and a united UNSC. This was accomplished mainly due to the ingenuity of foreign ministers John Kerry of the US and Javad Zarif of Iran.
Trump tore that agreement up with lasting negative impact on Iran and the entire Middle East region.
The General Assembly unanimously approved the Sustainable Development Goals – and we had the COP-meeting in Paris adopting the hitherto most ambitious goals and commitments to Climate Action. The Climate Agreement was reached because of good leadership from the UN and French Presidency of the COP, and most importantly because the US under President Obama worked together with China under Xi Jinping – also in bringing their most hesitant allies, friends and clients onboard.
Trump left that agreement a couple of years later – delaying the existentially important global efforts to stop climate change. Biden brought the US back into the agreement; but global action on climate has suffered because of attention turning first to the pandemic and later to the Russian war of horrible aggression against Ukraine. And in the last 11 months focus has been on the lack of American action to end the totally devastating Israeli war against the civilian population in Gaza – and the violent escalation of the occupation and colonisation of the West Bank.
All of this further demonstrates the arrogance of the P5 in relation to the overwhelming demands of a huge majority of UN member states,
The bad state of global affairs reminds me of an old anecdote about Mahatma Gandhi being asked about his opinion on Western Civilisation. His sarcastic answer was ‘It is a good idea!’
The same comment could be made on the idea of the UN Charter and international conventions as constitutional obligations for every member country, big or small. It is indeed a good idea. But we still have a very long way to go!
Dare we hope to ‘civilize’ Vladimir Putin – unless he himself is made to realise that he will not be able take Ukraine by force?
Dare we hope that American and European double standards on human rights and war crimes in Ukraine and Palestine will come to an end through combined pressure from domestic public opinion and the political necessity of closing the credibility gap to the global south?
Dare we hope for an understanding that the unipolar world is forever a thing of the past? That we need to reinvent an international order where a large majority of UN member countries never again will have to get in line as clients of the US, Europe, China .. or Russia?
Most countries in the world will never become model democracies – and, as ever, we must live together, a multitude of different kinds of democracies and authoritarian regimes. But hopefully, we share a common interest in preserving or reestablishing peace and creating sustainable development for future generations.
This is the important reason why the word democracy is not mentioned in the Sustainable Development Goals. We cannot expect China to become at Western Style democracy – but the climate cannot wait; we must all act together on climate now.
In the long perspective, most important for all of us is that the US and China manage to contain and administer their conflicts of interest and realise that they have much more important common interests in peace, economic development and climate action.
The disturbing fact is that – veto-power in the UN or not – we will have no lasting and peaceful international order if the biggest powers do not recognise that they share overarching common interests.
What the rest of us can do is to argue and pressure for their understanding and acceptance of this – including their support for more and stronger UN peacekeeping missions and much more investment through the UN system in eradication of poverty and climate solutions in poor countries.
And by the way – to support a stronger international system, we not only need a Security Council much more representative of the of peoples of world of today – we also need a reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, better to reflect the actual distribution of economic strength.
The broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest load and carry the highest of responsibly to live up to the UN Charter.