Refocused: Beijing, Burma, and the UN

In his article, "Burmese Blood is the UN's Shame," Professor Hu Shaojiang of the University of Cambrige's China Research Center reminds us of the real "shame" when it comes to the UN: the organizational composition of the UN allows powerful-yet-irresponsible nations with permanent seats on the Security Council to hijack the entire international political process.

There was essentially only one moment during the six decade-long history of the United Nations, Hu reminds us, that the UN was able to take firm action in response to an international crisis. That was when the Soviet Union boycotted a session of the General Assembly back in the 1950s, unintentionally clearing the way for the Western powers to lock in a vote in favor of fighting North Korea at the outset of the Korean War.

Before and ever since, virtually every renegade dictator, every despotic and backwards government to arise during the history of the UN has been able to find at least one supporter among the five permanent members of the Security Council. In his commentary, Hu illustrates the repeated political hamstringing that has resulted from this dynamic, paired with the notoriously gratuitous veto power enshrined in the UN Charter:

It is the totalitarian Chinese government that is supporting its counterpart in Burma. In fact, back in January, several democratic countries submitted a proposal that the United Nations pressure the military government in Burma to stop political repression. However, China and Russia, as permanent members of the Security Council, vetoed the proposal.

On the eve of the crackdown against monks and civilians in September, a number of countries had proposed a U.N. resolution calling for restraint in Burma, to prevent a repeat of the brutal suppression that occurred in Burma 19 years ago. But again China's opposition put the proposal on the shelf. With the support of big brother China, the Burmese military leaders were especially violent in suppressing the protests.

The United Nations accomplished nothing toward protecting the legal rights of Burma's citizens, once again revealing its incapability in dealing with major international affairs. As a matter of fact, since the United Nations was founded it has almost never played a decisive role in major international issues.

The only exception was in the early 1950s when the United Nations discussed whether or not to fight against the North Korean regime led by Kim Il Sung, which had invaded South Korea. Because the former Soviet Union made a wrong decision and did not attend the meeting, the United Nations had a good opportunity to exercise justice.

During the Cold War period, there was no understanding and no forgiveness among the superpowers. The United Nations didn't have the chance to work even in a superficial function as a rubber stamp. This situation hasn't really improved substantially even now that the Cold War is over.

. . . and so on, and so forth.

It is this same veto power, of course, that has been the central factor in barring Taiwan's government from even observer status in the UN all these years since 1971. Yet political disenfranchisement pales in comparison to the horrendous atrocities that are allowed to run their course, as concerned nations with a respect for international law feel they must pass the buck to the UN for action, only to run into the recurring truth that the UN is inherently unable to act.

China's government repeatedly reminds us that an unrestricted veto is more power than any member of the United Nations is fit to singularly wield. As Hu states:

"Equality among countries" is not equivalent to "equality among governments." If we let totalitarian governments enjoy the same rights as democratic ones that are elected by their citizens' free choice, it is humiliating to people who are deprived of their rights under totalitarian governments. . . .if a country violently suppresses its people's right to participate in political affairs, that country's right to speak and participate in international affairs should be taken away.

Currently, each individual UN Resolution, no matter how token in nature, can be tossed out at the drop of a hat without the slightest need of justification. At the very least, it would seem reasonable for the individual veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council to be replaced with, say, a single veto that can only be wielded by a 3-2 vote or with the unanimous consent of all five members.

Only when the world's majority of humanitarian, peaceful-minded nations are free to act in concert despite the dissent of a small minority of powerful despots will the UN be a politically relavent institution, and the reward for every nation will be a more peaceful and democratic globe.

Beijing in '08: No Issue Irrelevant

Today's “World News” section of the Washington Post contained an article on the Chinese government’s attempt to disassociate all international political controversies involving the People’s Republic of China from the Beijing Olympics. As reported in the article, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in the United States, “argued against efforts by activists to link participation in the Beijing-based 2008 Summer Olympics to China’s handling of Burma,” calling the issue of Burma and other regions such as Darfur “irrelevant.”

Our message to the PRC?

Good luck with that.

It would seem that the import of hosting the Olympic Games, the quadrennial international match of skill, dexterity and strength that dates back to ancient Greece, was lost on the folks in Beijing when they put in their bid for ’08. Let us look at some of the reasons why it is folly to believe that a host country’s diplomatic posture should not be altered; can even avoid alteration, during the run-up and actual passage of the Games:

1) The Olympics are about humanity.

Hosting the Olympics is a terribly attractive prospect for any government, because the successful preparation for the Olympic Games and the cultural events and security apparatus that come along with them represents an excellent chance for a government to exhibit its logistical, economic, and visionary capabilities, while at the same time displaying before the world the unique cultural identity of its citizens.

Yet along with this privilege comes great responsibility. As the world’s all-inclusive global sporting event, in their most basic sense the Olympic Games are about humankind testing of the capacities and physical limits of the human body. They are about the strength and vigor of our species. So the question the “live” or at-home spectator will inevitably ask about the host country when humanity itself is so prominently being paraded before the world public is, “What has this country done for the betterment of humanity lately?” In the case of China under the leadership of the PRC government the answer is, of course, “nothing much.”

2) The Olympics are also about equality.

The Olympics—unlike the United Nations these days—are inextricably founded upon the principle that all may participate. It is the reason the Jamaicans famously once placed a bobsled team in competition. It is also the reason why even athletes from a country as isolated as Taiwan are not and cannot be prohibited from competing on an athletically—if not politically—equal playing field with athletes from everywhere else. The Games are based on the premise that we are equal and born with inherent gifts and abilities, and that those among us with the greatest athletic abilities have the right, even the duty, to compete with their peers to push the physical limits of human strength and endurance.

3) ergo: the Olympics are about democracy.

It is no coincidence that the tradition of the Olympic Games originated in the Greek city-state remembered as the world’s first democracy. The Olympics are inherently democratic. During the Games, athletes and fans depart from every corner of the globe to converge on a single venue—to meet one another and test their common strength, weakness, and mettle via controlled competition. Ideas are exchanged, philosophies are expounded through the language of sport, and all are invited to participate. Humankind’s strength is reaffirmed through the celebration of both teamwork and individuality. These factors were no less intrinsic and valuable at the first Olympics in ancient Athens, although to the Athenians of the day the world was much, much smaller.

These three statements—that the Olympics are about humanity, equality, and therefore democracy—are, of course, rather idealistic in nature. But if there is one thing that is so blatantly obvious about the Olympics that might as well be taped to the bottom of a frying pan and repeatedly banged over one’s head, it is that these Games are about ideals. They have always been about a ideals, they always will be, and any nation that plans to host the Games should understand that its government, culture, and people will be scrutinized through the lens of those ideals. It is our personal belief that, in the case of China, the culture and the people will stand admirably up to Olympic scrutiny. China’s government on the other hand, will likely be found in relation to these ideals tragically lacking.