International Responsibility to Save Humanity from Hell... Before it's Too Late

“The United Nations was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”. A quote famously said by Dag Hammarskjöld, a former secretary general of the United Nations, who gave his life in 1961 while on UN duty. It is one of the truest statements that summarize the role of the United Nations as an international organization that does everything in its power to bring countries and peoples together, promoting peace and fraternity among them to avoid the tragedies and the scourge of war, and to work for peaceful solutions that end armed conflicts.

This phrase also shows that the United Nations does not possess a magic wand. It cannot resolve all the persistent crises, if Member States do not respond to its calls for collective endeavor.

The hell that threatens our world today is these recent global crises that cast heavy shadows on the international community. Today, our planet is more threatened than ever, not only by the serious socio-economic consequences caused in particular by the Covid pandemic’s outbreak in the past two years, but especially by the repercussions of Russia's war in Ukraine. The war threatens to undermine the Charter of the United Nations, when Russia annexed the territory of an independent State in a flagrant violation of the Charter, and therefore, violated the respect for the sovereignty of States.

Major dangers

Since February 24, the world has seen Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, occupying another independent country, and annexing parts of its land by force, in a clear breach of international law.

The ongoing war in Ukraine poses dangers that jeopardize the United Nations’ Charter, and might potentially lead to the complete collapse of the principle of the territorial integrity of States, and lead to the return to the era of colonialism and conquests.

Furthermore, a greater danger is looming over all of us. That is of a nuclear annihilation. The repeated threat of using nuclear weapons is now a trend we have been hearing from senior Russian leaders since the start of the war in Ukraine, and which, if it becomes true, will bring devastation never seen before, while not sparing the launchers of the first missile themselves.

Specter of the League of Nations

Past experiences of the League of Nations - the international organization that arose after the end of the First World War - proved that the predominance of the logic of applying military force to occupy and annex States, was the main reason responsible for the failure of the League's effort to protect world peace, and for the entry into a second world war.

The failure of the League of Nations to stop the Japanese invasion of Chinese Manchuria, and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the 1930s, was an incentive for the expansionist countries, led by Nazi Germany, to take advantage of the deteriorating collective security prestige, to achieve its expansion projects.

However, the reaction of the major Member States in the League was feeble. In particular, France and Britain, whose reactions were not sufficient to deter the venture of the Japanese and Italian expansion at the expense of two independent countries - China and Ethiopia - that were members of the League of Nations. Many reasons can explain their weak responses, but the most noticeable are their interior preoccupations with combating the repercussions of the global economic crisis.

This logic of expansion whet the appetite for Nazi, as well as Soviet expansion in neighboring countries. In the German case, despite the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France towards the Nazis, especially at the Munich Conference in 1938 - a strategic political victory for Nazi Germany - the Nazis took advantage later to wipe neighboring Czechoslovakia off the map. Czechoslovakia was also a member of the League of Nations. The expansion contradicted Nazi Germany’s promises at the Munich Conference to preserve the integrity of Czechoslovakia. Then the German expansion continued, which eventually led to the eruption of the Second World War, resulting in horrors on an unimaginable scale.

Today, the complete collapse of collective security, if it occurs, will lead to major and regional countries racing to impose their military hegemony and annex their neighbors. Remarkably this time, an imminent nuclear war, will threaten the very existence of human life.

UN: Partial success, hard work

The United Nations is aware of these looming dangers, and it is making all possible efforts to end the Ukraine war in a manner consistent with the territorial integrity of the Member States of the organization.

I also saw during my stay at the United Nations as part of the Dag Hammarskjöld Fellowship for Young Journalists, and over the course of more than two months, the great efforts made by the United Nations with all its capabilities, to alleviate the humanitarian crisis caused by the war in Ukraine. It succeeded in securing humanitarian aid significantly, but was unable to put an end to this war, especially since Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council and the pivotal party in the war, has constantly resorted to its veto power at the Council to block any draft resolution to end it.

Diplomacy subject to consensus of warring nations

Even with the obstruction of the resolution to end the war, the United Nations’ role remains important and very urgent. The UN has the option of diplomatic initiatives, a mechanism that might be very effective to put an end to the war in Ukraine. The UN is a reliable diplomat and would be a guarantor of any upcoming peace.

To mediate, the UN will have to reach an agreement with the main warring nations. But are the belligerent nations ready to end hostilities and negotiate peace? Let us have a look at the main players in the current conflict. The main powers are three: Russia (the aggressor) and Ukraine (the defender in a life-or-death battle), the two countries involved in the direct conflict. The third major player, is the United States, which is by far, the first provider of military and economic aid to Ukraine, and the main factor for the Ukrainians’ success in launching the large-scale counter-attack against the Russian army.

We have just recently seen the result of this support: the Ukrainians have just retaken the city of Kherson. In addition to these major players, other countries remain. Some may play an important role, but they are less influential than the aforementioned three main countries in determining the course of the war.

There is no indication that the three major players will agree to reach a solution that ends the crisis soon. Therefore, the United Nations’ diplomatic activity, will remain the best intermediary so far. UN officials must increase their efforts to urge the largest number of countries to vote on draft resolutions transferred from the Security Council (after the use of the veto in the Security Council) to the General Assembly, to end the war in Ukraine.

This would guarantee the preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity. Here emerges the responsibility of Member States to propose such resolutions, and vote to protect the Charter in any upcoming vote at the General Assembly. The adopted resolutions, although not legally binding, would morally compel the international community to take bold economic and political measures to press towards ending the war, while ensuring the protection of the UN Charter.

COP27 climate summit

In this context, the COP27 climate summit, which is currently being held in Egypt, is a great opportunity to mobilize international consensus under the umbrella of the UN, press for an end to the war, and save the human race from hell, as Dag Hammarskjöld said. The Member States of the UN are invited to link the existential danger that climate change poses to human life, with the same menace that a long-term conflict in Ukraine may lead to. They must seek out to devise effective solutions to address the two major crises, as soon as possible, before it is too late.

Head of Lebanon’s Free Patriotic Movement MP Gebran Bassil has demonstrated his ability to change his stances and adapt to changes in the country.

This was clearly shown when he backed Joseph Aoun’s election as president when he had initially been a staunch opponent of the former army commander.

Bassil had accused Aoun of being “disloyal” and of “violating the law” when he was army chief. This animosity led the FPM leader to object to his running for president, saying it was a constitutional violation.

However, Bassil quickly changed his stance and backed Aoun, because his “movement’s natural position is by the president.” The MP also said Aoun’s inaugural speech resonates with the FPM and that it was keen to see his pledges materialize.

The change in stance reflects the FPM’s reluctance to stand alone in the opposition as Lebanon approaches parliamentary elections next year. As it stands, the FPM has lost the majority of its allies, including Hezbollah.

Bassil recently acknowledged the losses, saying: “The FPM must get used to being in an independent position, without any allies or enemies.”

The FPM had won 18 seats in the 2022 elections. The number has now dropped to 13 after the resignation and sacking of some members of the FPM.

Later, the FPM would also make a last-minute change in throwing its support behind Nawaf Salam’s appointment as prime minister, when it was initially reluctant to do so.

Hezbollah viewed the change as “spiteful”, describing it as an “ambush” and accusing others of attempting to exclude it from power.

Member of the FPM’s Strong Lebanon bloc Jimmy Jabbour explained that Bassil opted to support Aoun because “of our conviction of the importance of the position of the presidency.”

“We must respect the position by standing by the president,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat.

The FPM didn’t have a specific candidate for the presidency, he remarked, adding that Bassil “did not want to run for post at the moment.”

The MP said that a “new positive chapter has been opened” and the FPM is eager to ensure that Aoun’s term is a success.

It does not want to squander the international support to Lebanon amid the ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah and the changes in the region, he added.

On whether the FPM will be represented in the new government, Jabbour said it was “only natural” that the blocs that supported Salam’s appointment be present in the new cabinet.

“At the end of the day, however, the formation of the government lies in the hands of the president and prime minister,” he stated.

Moreover, he stressed that were it not for the FPM’s support, Salam would not have been named PM.

Former FPM member lawyer Antoine Nasrallah said he was not surprised when Bassil switched to supporting Aoun’s presidency.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, he added: “Throughout his political career, Bassil has been known to take contradictory positions and to be either hostile or friendly with various political forces, depending in whether they serve his interests and agendas.”

“So, we were expecting him to behave the same way with Joseph Aoun,” he noted.

“Bassil’s ultimate goal is the presidency, and he will do the impossible to achieve it,” he said.

Furthermore, Nasrallah explained that Bassil will “shower Aoun’s term with support and affection because he is aware that Aoun will eliminate his popularity ... should he remain hostile to him.”

“The FPM has become a political party that relies on clientelism. It believes that it can still have a piece of the cake because it is fully aware that a move to the opposition will mean its end,” he added.

Former President Michel Aoun – Bassil's father-in-law – had named Jospeh Aoun as army commander in 2017. The latter had always been viewed as loyal to the then president.

People who were closely following Joseph’s Aoun appointment told Asharq Al-Awsat that Bassil had been vehemently against it, but the president insisted.

After the appointment, the president tried to ease the tensions between the army chief and his son-in-law.

During the October 2019 anti-government protests, Bassil was very critical of the army commander because he was allowing the demonstrators to block roads, claiming he was even following American orders and that he had turned against the president.

International Responsibility to Save Humanity from Hell... Before it's Too Late