The United Nations
was founded in 1945 to maintain international peace and security
and undertake collective measures to remove threats to peace; to
promote equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to help
solve problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian
character; and to encourage "social progress and better standards
of life in larger freedom."[1] The United Nations has failed more often
than it has succeeded in meeting these objectives. A significant
reason for this failure is its universal membership, which grants
repressive, abusive, or dictatorial regimes the same stature and
privileges as states that abide by the U.N.'s founding principles.
These states use their membership to undermine the objectives of
the organization and to shield one another from scrutiny and
actions to curb their abuses. The case of Iran demonstrates how a
U.N. member can flout the organization's principles while avoiding
sanction and maintaining great clout. The United States should take
steps within and outside of the U.N. to prevent bad actors like
Iran from exerting undue influence on international processes.
Iran's Violations of
Basic U.N. Principles
The U.N. Charter
proclaims that all U.N. member states must be "peace loving" and
"shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity…of any
state."
The current Iranian regime, however, bases no small part of its
foreign relations policy upon destroying another U.N. member,
Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that
Israel "must be wiped off the map" and that "Zionists are the true
manifestation of Satan."[3] True to his word, Ahmadinejad, with the
support of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the clerical
mullahcracy, continues to sponsor terrorist groups such as Hamas
and Hezbollah as part of Iran's ongoing unofficial war against
Israel.[4] Iran's aggression is not limited to Israel.
By harboring senior members of al-Qaeda and arming terrorists in
Iraq with deadly bombs, Iran has become a clear danger to U.S.
national security.[5] Iran's support of terrorism violates many
U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1373,
passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[6]
Through its
nuclear weapons program, Iran also threatens the Middle East region
and the world. Defying Security Council resolutions with impunity,
Iran has come to realize that the U.N. and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) are unwilling or unable to stop its nuclear
ambitions. Iran is also developing an arsenal of ballistic missiles
that could potentially deliver the nuclear weapons it is eagerly
pursuing. The Iranian Shahab-3 missile can reach every nation in
the Middle East, and Iran is allegedly developing missiles that
could reach Europe and beyond.
The Iranian regime also poses a serious danger to the Iranian
people.[7] Iranian protesters and dissidents are
routinely beaten, tortured, and killed.[8] The U.S. Department of State
reports that Iran "continued to commit numerous, serious abuses
[including]: severe restriction of the right of citizens to change
their government peacefully; unjust executions after reportedly
unfair trials; disappearances; torture and severe officially
sanctioned punishments such as death by stoning;…political
prisoners and detainees; severe restrictions on civil liberties
including speech, press, assembly, association, movement, and
privacy; severe restrictions on freedom of religion;…
violence and legal and societal discrimination against women,
ethnic and religious minorities, and homosexuals."[9] Iran violently
represses its ethnic Arab and Kurd populations as well as its
religious minorities, such as the Baha'i community, whose members
are routinely detained and arrested.[10] Non-Muslims are protected
in Iran only so long as they "refrain from engaging in conspiracy
or activity against Islam."[11] All of these actions are
in contravention of Iran's obligations under multilateral treaties
such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a
cornerstone of human rights protections, as well as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Iran's Impunity at
the U.N.
Despite its
failure to live up to the basic principles of the United Nations
and its efforts to undermine those principles, Iran is lionized
within the U.N. organization. The U.N. membership has acted several
times lately to reward or protect Iran from scrutiny or action:
-
When the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard illegally kidnapped 15 British naval personnel
lawfully operating in Iraq's territorial waters pursuant to U.N.
resolutions, the U.N.'s response was inappropriately muted. There
was no condemnation by the U.N. Security Council, much less a
Chapter VII resolution stating that the unjustified abduction
amounted to an act of war. Instead, the Security Council issued a
tame press statement expressing its "grave concern."
- Despite its serial violation of IAEA demands and Security
Council resolutions relating to its nuclear program, Iran was
recently reelected to serve as the vice-chair of the U.N.
Disarmament Commission, which makes recommendations relating to
nuclear and conventional disarmament. This not only undermines the
public perception of the organization's commitment to disarmament
and non-proliferation, but also inhibits the effectiveness of that
body to address one of the world's most pressing disarmament
issues, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
-
In its most
recent session, the Human Rights Council decided to discontinue
consideration of the human rights situation in Iran under the
"1503" procedure.
[12] Consideration of situations under 1503
are held in confidential proceedings to encourage government
cooperation, making it difficult to determine the reasoning for
discontinuing the situation in Iran.
[13] However, the decision is
surprising considering that many human rights organizations and the
U.S. Department of State have argued convincingly that severe human
rights abuses and government sanctioned oppression and mistreatment
demanded scrutiny by the Council. Despite evidence of extensive
human rights abuse, 25 of the Council's 47 members voted to end
scrutiny of Iran.
[14]
Recommendations
Iran's treatment
within the U.N. system is an extreme case, but is not unique. On
the contrary, the organization finds itself similarly handicapped
in holding other abusive, aggressive, or oppressive regimes to
account for their failure to abide by basic U.N. principles.
Specific examples include the inability to sanction or take
substantive action against Sudan's government for its actions in
Darfur; refusal to confront Robert Mugabe over his increasingly
violent actions to preserve his authority that have led to mass
refugees and widespread poverty; the weak stance of the U.N. toward
abuses in Burma; and the inability to constrain the tyrannical
regime in North Korea.
The U.S. should
recognize that the source of these problems is not the U.N., per
se, but the membership of the organization, and take actions to
combat the collective influence of repressive states in the U.N.
system:
-
Reform U.N.
membership. Over the years, the U.N. has regarded self-rule to
be the main prerequisite for membership, rather than whether a
proposed new member is a "peace-loving state [that is willing to]
accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in the
judgment of the Organization, [is] able and willing to carry out
these obligations."
[15] As a result, some U.N. members routinely
violate the Charter principles yet enjoy the privileges of U.N.
membership, which they can take for granted. Based on the Charter
principles, there is no justification for Iran's U.N. membership.
It is an aggressive actor, poses an increasing threat to
international peace and security, is a proliferator of weapons of
mass destruction, and is a repressive, undemocratic regime that
persecutes its own citizens. Iran does not deserve membership
alongside free, democratic countries that observe the founding
principles of the organization.
The U.N. should reprimand those countries that habitually violate
U.N. principles. The U.S. should raise the issue of ejecting the
worst violators. Some may suggest that this goes against the spirit
of the United Nations, but the procedures for revoking U.N.
membership are set forth in Chapter 2 of the U.N. Charter, which
states:
A Member of
the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles
contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the
Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the
Security Council.[16]
Obviously,
the drafters of the Charter envisioned the possibility of ejecting
nations from the organization. A two-thirds vote in the General
Assembly would be difficult to achieve, as would a Security Council
recommendation for the ejection of a member country, but the threat
alone may encourage better behavior and shame U.N. member nations
into being more vocal and rigorous in their support of freedom and
human rights.
-
Forge freedom
coalitions. The U.S. should push for the establishment of an
Economic Freedom Caucus and an officially-recognized Democracy
Caucus at the U.N. These two groups would bring together countries
that share common values on human rights, freedom of religion,
equal rights, representative government, free trade, and economic
freedom. There are nations that agree with the U.S. on economic and
political freedom but which do not vote with the U.S. on these
issues due to regional loyalties and other pressures. Members of
these caucuses could be convinced to vote with the U.S. on crucial
matters at the Human Rights Council and the Economic and Social
Council and would be seen as supporting common principles, rather
than the U.S. Creating alternative coalitions and voting blocs
could serve U.S. interests by countering the efforts of other
voting blocs (such as the G-77 and the Organization of the Islamic
Conference) and establishing reliable allies to support U.S.
efforts to expand freedom, basic rights, and the rule of law.
-
Establish
coalitions of like-minded states to address issues of mutual
concern. The broad membership of the U.N. sometimes proves
useful but also creates enormous constraints on the body. The U.S.
should seek to establish coalitions of like-minded states to
supplement the U.N. and take action when the U.N. proves unable or
unwilling to address vital concerns and threats. One example of
such a coalition is the Proliferation Security Initiative, through
which participating nations clamp down on trade in technology and
equipment used to develop weapons of mass destruction and other
weapons and related materials that pose a threat to international
peace and security. These coalitions should be flexible and
non-exclusive. Different members could be included in discrete
coalitions depending on interest or suitability to undertake
humanitarian or security operations that they determine to affect
their security interests, to conduct reputable election monitoring,
to issue joint statements or judgments on human rights situations
around the world, and to coordinate joint sanctions regimes on
rogue states.
Conclusion
Iran is a
prominent example of how a nation can routinely violate the
principles of the U.N. without fear of sanction and even prosper
within the body. Other examples include Sudan, North Korea,
Zimbabwe, and Burma. The U.S. should recognize that the source of
many of these problems is not the U.N. but its membership. The U.S.
should, therefore, take actions to combat the collective influence
of repressive states in the U.N. system while simultaneously
exploring alternative coalitions to address issues of international
importance.
Brett D. Schaefer is
Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs,
and Steven
Groves is Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, in the Margaret
Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage
Foundation.
[1]
Charter of the United Nations, Preamble and Article 1, at .
[2]
Ibid., Article 2.