Friends, Fiends & Foes of UN Charter

You know how you are reading an email or a message from someone claiming to be from America and then you realize there is something off about their English and it’s probably some hacker from Russia (Boris or Sergei) writing you? Whenever I hear of “Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations”, I instantly know it is the work of Russia. Originally an alliance of Venezuela and Russia, the group expanded (and shrunk) and presented its concept paper in 2022.  It now includes Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, Laos, Mali, Nicaragua, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Syria, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Whether they are friends, fiends or foes of the UN Charter is entirely dependent on which articles of the UN Charter one chooses to emphasize.

1. UN Charter

Signed in 1945, the UN Charter has 111 articles and was last amended in 1973. Its main articles address the following:

1. Human Rights: The Charter reaffirms faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women.
2. Self-Determination: It promotes the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, which implies that all people have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.
3. Sovereignty and Non-Interference: The Charter upholds the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
4. Peaceful Resolution of Disputes: It encourages the peaceful settlement of disputes and prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council.
5. Equal Treatment and Non-Discrimination: The Charter advocates for equal treatment of all nations, regardless of their size or power, and prohibits discrimination based on race, gender, language, or religion.
6. Social Progress and Better Standards of Life: It aims to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, by fostering economic and social development, as well as respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
7. International Cooperation: The Charter emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems, and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

II. Group of Misnamed Friends

I would like to see somebody make a compelling argument that Russia actually respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Or that China (or Cuba or North Korea or Equatorial Guinea or Eritrea, or Iran, or Laos, or Mali, or Nicaragua… Zimbabwe) respect human rights and fundamental freedom of their citizens. Or that either China or Russia would be willing to give up their veto powers despite the Charter’s call for equality of all nations.

They should call themselves, instead, “Bunch of Countries Tired of America.” What they are really opposing is a collection of instruments that the US and its allies use with the very innocuous name of  “rules-based international order” (Oh, gee, who could be against rules, international and order?) accompanied by “unilateral” use (by the US) of sanctions to enforce compliance.  Allegedly.

III. Group of Friends Against “Unilateral Sanctions”

The word “sanction” does not exist in the UN Charter.  So by what authority is it imposed on countries? The word sanction may not exist, but its wordier synonym does exist in Article 41 which states:

“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

As defenders of the Charter, the Group of Friends surely know that the Charter allows for sanctions. What they claim is that it is selectively and “unilaterally” applied on (always) enemies of the United States. This is a difficult argument to defend because UN sanctions can ONLY be applied by the Security Council and two of the “friends of the charter”, Russia and China, have veto-powers which enable them to veto any sanction, anytime, anywhere.

Take Eritrea, for example. It was sanctioned by the UN Security Council in 2009 (for its destructive role in Somalia and Djibouti) and 2011 (same as above, with deeper financial sanctions.)   Was this sanction “unilateral”? Let’s count the votes:

Now I hope you understand why I said “allegedly” when referring to the claim that the sanctions were unilateral. There was only one “no” vote for Resolution 1907 (2009)–from the very, um, different Kaddaffi.  Russia voted YES and China abstained.  There were zero “no” votes for resolution 2023 (2011). Neither Russia nor China voted no.  Nobody did.  The sanctions were multilateral–countries representing every continent– and they were passed after a long due process: 3 security council resolutions and 4 UN statements begging the Eritrean government to mend its ways, which were rudely rejected by the Government of Eritrea with its superb diplomatic acumen.  For example, they denied there was anything to mediate with Djibouti before the sanctions because it was all “a fabricated” border conflict, then promptly engaged Qatar to mediate the formerly fabricated border conflict after the sanctions.    The point is: the sanctions were entirely self-inflicted: even the two “friends of the Charter”, Russia and China, superpowers with veto powers couldn’t defend it.   If they could, they would have vetoed it.

IV. Group of Friends Against “Rules-Based International Order”

What is the “rules-based international order”? It is a set of Western values whose purported objective is to universalize Western values. The proponents of the “rules-based international order” say that it promotes multilateralism, open and free trade, conflict resolution, and human rights. They point to nations such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan to indicate that their Western values work just as well in the East as they do in the West.   They work even in South America (except with that pesky Venzuela) but so far, sadly, not in Africa.  The opponents say that “rules-based international order” undermines national sovereignty, entrenches Western dominance, is ineffective in addressing global challenges and is very, very selectively applied. What is worse, institutions bigger than the UN and entirely within the control of the West–World Bank and IMF, Swift–are the instruments, the carrots and sticks, which are wielded against nations to enforce compliance.

To my knowledge, from all the “Group of Friends”, the only country that has articulated an alternative to the “rules-based international order” based on its ancient value system (Confucianism) and prospered for it is China. Instead of rule of law, China advocates rule of virtue. It doesn’t believe there is anything “universal”: everything is organic and evolving. Instead of the absolute right of the individual, it believes in the absolute right of the State.  The name of “Group of Friends” might be Russian, but the ideology is definitely Chinese. Pre-Mao China, 500 BC, when the Westerners were experimenting with coup d’etas.  The other Friends, including Eritrea, have articulated no such vision: they are merely recoiling at US overreach without presenting an organic and coherent alternative.

Of course, whether a people choose to model their countries after the West’s “rules-based international order,” or its alternative is just that: a choice. It is just that the Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations are not huge fans of the defining features of the Charter–human rights and “dignity and worth of the human person” and “fundamental freedoms.”  Democracy. 

Everybody agrees that it’s long past due to amend the UN Charter which hasn’t been amended since 1973.  This can come about only when the marginalized people of the world recognize there is strength in numbers and organize.  But Russia and China? Remember, neighbors of Russia and China are just as nervous as neighbors of the USA.  Russia has shown us what it is like when it runs an empire (USSR) and China has shown us how it treats its minorities, not in the 19th century but in the 21st.  Is our exhaustion of the US so much that we will embrace Russia and China with their repulsive human rights records? The Charter says that resort to force can be used ONLY in self-defense or with UN Security Council resolutions. Is there one for Russia’s attack and annexation of parts of Ukraine?

The Charter and its companion documents such us UN Declaration of Human Rights state their belief in the universality of rights.  These documents are ratified by all, including the Group of Friends.  The documents call on all to maintain “the dignity and of the worth of the human person.”   Dignity includes the right to hire and fire the rulers, which can only be accomplish via voting: democracy.  Ironically, the only time our rulers (who should be our servants) care about voting or democracy is at the UN, when they demand due process, justice, and representative democracy.  The same things they deny their own citizens.