Multilateralism1 describes the conceptual framework under which individual nation states may form temporal alliances with other nation states in order to realise national or international polity. The conceptual framework used may involve politics, economy, military influence and cultural necessity. When a multilateral alliance is formed, it is usual for the conceptual framework to operate for the lifetime of an alliance or until one or both parties have achieved their stated goal. A multilateral alliance may operate in the short term if the stated goals of both parties can be realised quickly; for instance invasion or military occupation of a sovereign entity, or can operate over the long term; for instance a strategic alliance deemed necessary for long term security of both parties. Very rarely, does a multilateral relationship work in permanent form. By the same token, very rarely does a multilateral relationship work purely over the very short term.
A multilateral alliance may involve many disparate nation states each holding very different political outlooks. Where this is the case, the conceptual framework is often in a state of constant agitation. If the terms under which the multilateral alliance change, even to a small degree, the alliance may break or fracture releasing the membership from their obligations. When multilateral alliances form involving states with chronically similar political, cultural or military agenda's; small changes to the terms of the conceptual framework often go unnoticed and may bloom into alliance-wide problems. If unchecked, the entire multilateral alliance may go onto concertina failure, with attendant damage and disruption felt by the whole membership. Where this happens, major and very serious failure is often felt across the entire spectrum of the alliances systems; even in areas in which no multilateral instrument exists or was originally planned.
In its most obvious form, multilateralism manifests in the modern period as the United Nations [UN]2. The Charter of the United Nations came into existence on 26th June 1945 in San Francisco, United States as a postscript to the United Nations Conference on International Organisation attended and ratified by 51 member nations. On 24th October 1945, the Charter came into force3. On 31st August 1965, an amendment to the charter in the form of article 23 came into force expanding the membership of the United Nations Security Council from eleven to fifteen member states. Article 27 expanded the Security Council from seven to nine members on matters of the Security Council's procedures and article 61 expanded the membership of the United Nations Economic and Social Council from eighteen to twenty seven states. A further amendment to article 61 on 24th September 1973 enlarged the membership of the council from twenty seven to fifty four members.
At present there are 193 member nations of the United Nations General Assembly, five permanent, and ten non-permanent members of the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Security Council are China, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United States and France. The General Assembly meets once every year at an annual general meeting where each member is required to address the assembly on matters of national development, economy, security and to illustrate multilateral problems or difficulties faced by each member state. The Security Council is an ad-hoc body which meets periodically to address conflict, crisis and international security. The business of the General Assembly and the Security Council are intimately linked.
Under Article 14 of the Charter of the United Nations, member states will meet to maintain international peace and security and to take effective collective measures for prevention and removal of threats to the peace; suppression of acts of aggression and adjustments or settlement of international disputes. The United Nations Security Council was initially formed by those powers that had emerged victorious from the ashes of the second pan-European conflict of 1939 - 1945.
The multilateral internecine Empire of the United States maintains 539,3535 facilities inside and outside the United States positioned on 5,579 sites ranging from small holdings through to large military bases. Its total land holdings amount to 29,000,000 (twenty nine million) acres owned and controlled by the US Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD's total holdings originate either by outright ownership, lease or forced removal of a previously sitting tenant. In total, the DoD's holdings around the world exemplify and enhance the United States Empires ability to project its power within and beyond its immediate sphere of influence. The presence of a facility in a sensitive location will accumulate with other facilities in adjacent or nearby territories and will provide for overlapping and extended projection of power.
Throughout the sphere of the global United States Empire, military facilities and sites will be occupied by military personnel of a uniformed or civilian clothed type. It is, therefore, not possible to determine the exact manpower deployed within these bases. The total manpower arranged throughout the entirety of the United States Empire is comprised of uniformed military personnel, plain-clothed civilian staff contracted informally to military service and tertiary manpower made up of foreign and allied contractors with primary access to facilities and bases.
The United States Empire maintains 716 facilities containing 102,783 buildings around the world with a further 121 facilities containing 10,554 buildings in its foreign territories. A further 4,742 facilities containing 426,016 buildings are based inside the continental United States itself. Of these, around 10% are private facilities operated by private contracting corporations in direct service to the DoD's stated missions.
From September 11th 2001 to present, the United States has attempted to expand its influence most especially throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Along with its allies and partners, the United States presents a form of multilateralism which can be described as internecine in nature when placed alongside the international multilateralism of the accepted legitimacy of the United Nations.
The primary locations of the United States bulk forces are Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Australia, South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Singapore, Kenya, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Turkey, Bahrain, Cuba, Ecuador and Colombia.
The primary locations of the United States most important multilateral long-range strategic facilities are United Kingdom, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan and South Korea. The United Kingdom constitutes the bulk of long-range Eurasian air-cover and transport, Germany constitutes the bulk of US Eurasian Army displacement, Greece and Italy constitutes the bulk of US Navy coverage throughout the Mediterranean also acting as forward deployment staging posts for North African and Middle-Eastern operations with Japan and South Korea maintaining large-scale multi-forces in the Pacific. The United States is weak along the south Asian and south American littorals. The bulk of US military forces are contained within the domestic United States which have become excessively reliant on civilian sector operations.
International and internecine multilateralism
The collision between the interests of the internecine United States Empire and the multilateral United Nations is now apparent on the world stage in precise and compelling form. For many members, the United Nations has evolved significantly over the past 40 year period and now requires reform in the areas of economy, policy, procedure and security. The five permanent members of the Security Council maintain disproportionate oversight over the day-to-day security apparatus of the UN. Decision making and consensus does not adequately reflect the views of the entirety of the General Assembly members.
This is in larger part due to the strategic collision between the internecine multilateral United States and the multilateralism of the UN. For many UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] members, requests put before the UN Security Council are laden with the veneer of strategic and tactical posturing of the United States and its dependents. This does not properly facilitate a wide range of views from other General Assembly members and can often reduce the UN Security Council to a state of paralysis; the same paralysis that is often presented by internecine members to the outside world as evidence of UN inaction under the terms of its charter. For many, this paralysis often ensures that the ordinary day-to-day work of the United Nations is unjustifiably concerned with imbalance toward the strategic and tactical self-interest of the United States, at the expense of a number of other pressing concerns before the UN.
This paralysis can most clearly be seen when examining the speeches of the General Assembly delegates at the 67th General Meeting of the General Assembly recently held in New York, United States6.
It should be noted that the United Nations does not serve exclusively as an instrument for the dissemination of domestic polity of heads of state, nor does it encourage member states to engage in non-communicative behaviour. The United Nations is a forum for nation states and as such, all nation state delegates are required under the terms of the charter to engage fully with the overall membership. The United Nations does not encourage single issue politics to be disseminated through this forum. However, it has become clearly evident that allies of the United States have become uncommunicative as a result of their alliance with the US in recent years. This often manifests as dissemination of the polity of the United States by allies of the United States often at expense of their own political, security and development requirements.
With alarming regularity, those territories that make up the foreign territories of the United States Empire have delivered a single on-topic message as defined by the United States political sphere. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France, Israel and others have used the 67th meeting to call on the membership to adopt a policy of intervention into Syria; itself paralysed by a highly destructive civil war that has so far claimed the lives of 30,000 people. Over the course of the past 6 - 7 years, a number of voices around the world have warned of nuclear proliferation taking place in Iran with an equal number of voices warning of a regional conflagration stretching from Turkey to Egypt should the United States attempt to intervene in Iran in order to arrest its so-called nuclear weapons program. These calls have almost solely emanated from Israel which clearly is attempting to foster a policy of nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle-East. This has brought about a tactical response from the United States.
In order to prevent a wider regional conflict from erupting at the point of an Iranian intervention, the United States has attempted to reverse the expected course of the conflict by rotating it. In an attempt to narrate a different course, the United States has attempted to place the expected outcome of the conflict; regional instability and widespread civil disorder, at the beginning of the engagement prior to reaching the intended tactical outcome; war with Iran. In this sense, the tactical strategy employed by the United States and its dependents is to arrive at an Iranian conflict having already dealt with the possible fallout during the pre-amble.
At present, the United States is attempting to depose the Syrian Government in order to place poorly organised nationalists in its place. The United States is not concerned with Syria's security, nor is it concerned with its long-term wellbeing; the United States is attempting to paralyse Syria temporarily just long enough to ensure that military action can be achieved in Iran without serious return of consequence. In this sense, the Syrian civil war can more properly be considered to be a tactical internecine conflict of the Empire of the United States. Syria's transition toward a Democracy is unlikely to be of strategic importance to the United States after a military attack on Iran has been completed, and so is unlikely to be supported for any length of time. After an Iranian attack has been completed, the United States will simply abandon Syria and the country will slide into a wider internecine conflict potentially lasting over the long term.
It should be noted that as an empire, the United States operates forward strategic velocity in the direction of its own self-interest at all times. The colour of the political flag it happens to be waving at any given time does not materially affect or change its forward geostrategic momentum.
Over several days7 in September 2012, the United Nations General Assembly were exposed to a combined delivery of the tactical sleight-of-hand from the United States and its allies regarding Syria rendering the UN inactive and unable to act under the terms of its charter. Over the course of the following days, the paralysis was reported directly and indirectly as being a failure of the UN itself, rather than a failure of US foreign policy in combined tactical form.
Multilateralism - presentation
The following section deals with content style and presentation of both international multilateralism and its internecine equivalent by presenting the content of the speeches of various delegates as they appeared at the 67th General meeting of the United Nations General Assembly between September 25th and September 27th 2012. The delegates chosen to highlight the problem of internecine multilateralism are taken from those nations where the United States has both military facilities and a formally recognised multilateral alliance outside the terms of the charter of the United Nations. Other delegates are included either because they are subject to the stated hostility of the United States and its allies, or because they have openly referred to the problem of internecine multilateralism during the course of their address.
Juan Evo Morales Ayma - President of Bolivia
In this speech given by Juan 'Evo' Morales, President of Bolivia, to assembled delegates on September 25th 2012, the subject of reform of the UN is explored.
He states [8:45]
We argue in theory. All of us here are great defenders of human rights. We want peace. We defend democracy, but in fact; we are divided. The United Nations are not united as nations and that is the difference...Mr Ban Ki Moon...tells us we have to change the world...but how can we change the world if we do not change the United Nations". He goes on to say "There seems to be a rebellion of states against powers, against empires, against Capitalism. Now I feel that we are losing our fears in front of the powers and...we should not be afraid. We should not be afraid of empires or Capitalism. Capitalism and Imperialism are not the solution to life or to humanity. We are living in times of the crisis of capitalism.- Juan Evo Morales, President de Bolivia.
Julia Eileen Gillard - Prime Minister of Australia
This speech by the Prime Minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, is very typical of the vapid and evasive style of address used by allies of the United States at the UN. Throughout the entirety of her speech, she fails comprehensively to give even a single material fact relating to the internal development of her country but concerns herself exclusively with the announcement of various immaterial corporate ventures, most of which are tossed neatly into the near future where they cannot be evaluated, tested or critiqued. She announces complicity with the United States Empire by carefully criticising the recent Muslim protests and US embassy attacks and then goes on to demand the UN [10:59] 'act decisively' to depose the Syrian government. The Australian Prime Minister continues claiming [11:06]
"It is now six years since the Security Council first expressed concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme". Iran has a non-weaponised nuclear programme and all intelligence estimates throughout the world, including at the UN, have categorically stated that Iran does not possess a weapons component. The UN has never expressed any such concern. The insistence that Iran has a weapons element to its nuclear programme is postulated by Israel only and is done so for strategic reasons. Israel does not possess a nuclear weapons capability and is attempting to exploit Iran's nuclear energy programme in order to garner an off-the-shelf component from the United States. Therefore, Israel's strategy is firmly rooted in engineering strategic nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle-East.
A short while after the Australian delegate made her speech, the Australian Government published an edited version with the offending statement removed.
An archived copy of the page can be found here and the original can be found here.
The Australian Prime Minister then goes onto to brazenly insist that Australia attain membership of the Security Council; an act that would clearly cripple the UN and seriously undermine its work under the terms of its charter. The UN Security Council has little to gain by allowing excessive representation of internecine multilateralist's within its ranks.
She states [11:06]
It is now six years since the Security Council first expressed concern over Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran still refuses to take the urgent steps necessary to build confidence that its nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. In contravention of successive IAEA and UN Security Council resolutions, Iran moves closer to having the capacity to produce weapons-grade material. So we stand with the world, united in sending a strong signal - through Security Council sanctions - that Iran must change its behaviour now. A nuclear armed Iran would be a major threat to regional and global security: especially given the shocking and aggressive statements about Israel by Iran's leadership. There remains the opportunity for diplomacy, backed up by robust sanctions, to persuade Iran to change its course. Iran must take this opportunity for change and the nations of this Assembly must press Iran to do so. There must also be change in the Middle East process for peace. Australia shares the frustration of the parties at the current impasse. We understand the strong desire of the Palestinian people for national self-determination. Australia is resolutely committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state which is both independent and viable.- Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia.
The Australian delegate's speech is a compelling example of the error-prone, clumsy and evasive speech used by corporate governments within the multilateral sphere of the Empire of the United States. The use of this sterile language strategy has rendered these nations effectively uncommunicative and unresponsive both internationally and at home. This failure brings about a deficit of understanding at the international level which in turn has undermined the charter of the United Nations and decreased its overall effectiveness. These failures are the fundamental property of corporate government and not, as is often claimed, the failure of the UN itself. In almost all recent cases where the UN has been reported to have been paralysed by indecision and inaction, a corporate ally of the United States is usually the culprit.
Mohamed Morsi Isa El-Ayyat - President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Mohamed Morsi Isa El-Ayyat is the first democratically elected President of Egypt. He deals with a number of themes in his speech including female emancipation, support for other African states and the revolution in Egypt before turning to reform of the United Nations.
He states [29:32]
We look at the current international system and feel that we need to work seriously to repair this international order, based on the principles that would renew its legitimacy and maintain its credibility. This is the legitimate demand of people's and nations that express themselves and would like to participate in a new world for a new future for its sons and daughters. We [see] the General Assembly as a democratic forum that would express the will of the international community and the change in the structure of the Security Council which still represents an era that is completely obsolete. Both the General assembly and the Security Council must be reformed as an upmost priority.- Mohamed Morsi Isa El-Ayyat, President of Egypt.
Mahmoud Abbas - Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization; President of the Palestinian National Authority.
In this speech by the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization & President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas talks about life inside the epicentre of strident nationalism. It is now clear that Israel represents many of the problems that face the international community; extremist nationalism, terrorism, international lawlessness and religious persecution. In his speech before the UN, the Israeli delegate earlier gave a speech riddled with nationalist vitriol and heavily inculcated with religious extremism, propaganda and rhetoric. The speech had no material value for delegates, but was aimed exclusively at belligerent nationalists and racists of all stripes and colours throughout Israel's shrinking domain.
Mr Abbas highlights the problems now faced by the Palestinian people in the midst of this attempt at ethnic cleansing.
He states: [2:00]
Ladies and gentlemen, developments over the past year have confirmed what we have persistently drawn attention to; and warned of. The catastrophic danger of the racist settler colonisation of our country. During the past months, attacks by terrorist militias of Israeli settlers have become a daily reality, with at least 535 attacks perpetrated since the beginning of this year.- Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
We are facing relentless waves of attacks against our people, our mosques, churches and monasteries and our homes and schools. They are unleashing their venom against our trees, fields, crops and properties, and our people have become fixed targets for acts of killing and abuse with the complete collusion of the occupying forces; and the Israeli Government.
The escalation of settlers attacks should not surprise anyone, for it is the inherent by-product of the continuation of occupation and a government policy that deliberately fosters settlements and settlers and deems their satisfaction to be its absolute priority...it is the inherent by-product of the racist climate fuelled by a culture of incitement in the Israeli curriculum and extremist opinions which are ripe with hatred and are rooted in a series of discriminatory laws.
The[se] positions reveal to us the following:
Small Palestinian enclaves surrounded by large Israeli blocks and walls, checkpoints and vast security zones and roads devoted to the settlers areas. The settlers would remain subject to the full dominance of the military colonial occupation, packaged under new names such as unilateral plan for a so-called state with provisional borders.
Israel refuses to end the occupation and refuses to allow the Palestinian people to attain their rights and freedom and rejects the establishment of the state of Palestine.
Israel is promising the Palestinian people a new catastrophe, a new Nakba, a new setback.
I speak on behalf of an angry people, a people that feels that while they press for their rights to freedom, [to] adopt a culture of peace and adhere to the principles and rules of international law and resolutions of international legitimacy, rewards continue to be illogically bestowed upon Israel who's government pursues a policy of war, occupation and settler colonisation. Israel continues to be permitted to enjoy impunity and some continue to obstruct the adoption of a decisive position regarding its violations of international law and governance.
This, in fact, represents a licence for the occupation to continue its policy of dispossession and ethnic cleansing and encourages it to entrench its system of Apartheid against the Palestinian people.
Effects of internecine multilateralism
The effects of internecine multilateralism on the nation states of the world can be seen most presciently in those territories of the empire where military bases, and personnel, continue to remain in place or close by. In Egypt, the yoke of empire has been dismissed by the populace in the heartland of the Arab Revolution, in Tunisia; the same. In Italy8, Spain9, Greece10 and Portugal11, financial hardship has appeared at a stroke arresting international development. In Iraq12 and Afghanistan13, 14, the freedoms of the people have been curtailed by a the deadly effects of the US's past and current interventions. In Israel15, 16, the drums of a shocking war beat louder by the day in service to mankind's most ardent and effective katechon; general nuclear weapons proliferation. In every one of these places, the United States operates military facilities or has recently attempted to inculcate its military systems within the domestic systems of the host nation.
These travails all point to the notion that many of the world's current problems, are simply manifestations of the descent of an empire; writ large upon the world. In short, the world without empire is a much more peaceful and environmentally sound place. In this environment, the multilateral institution of the United Nations finds itself in the very same environment that first brought it into being in 1945.
Over the course of its life, the UN Security Council has buttressed the United States and its allies to a number of conflicts which have clearly been heavily influenced by the domestic security polity of the United States. By the same token, conflicts that have raged around the world but been of little material benefit to the domestic polity of the US, have gone on unregarded. This is not in any way the result of the United Nations membership itself; but the product of the United States declared self-interest. During the early 1990's, the United States government actively sought to renovate the role of the United Nations toward being an appendage to the foreign policy of the United States. In a policy document entitled "The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations"17 dated May 1994 and released to the United States National Security Archive18 on August 20th 2001, the role of the United Nations in the eyes of the United States is made fully clear; the United Nations would be considered by the Democratic Clinton Presidency as an appendage and would not take precedence over the immediate national security requirements of the United States. The policy is outlined below:
As specified in the "Bottom-Up Review," the primary mission of the U.S. Armed Forces remains to be prepared to fight and win two simultaneous regional conflicts. In this context, peacekeeping can be one useful tool to help prevent and resolve such conflicts before they can pose direct threats to our national security. Peacekeeping can also serve U.S. interests by promoting democracy, regional security, and economic growth.- The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations. May 1994.
The policy directive (PDD) addresses six major issues of reform and improvement:
1. Making disciplined and coherent choices about which peace operations to support -- both when we vote in the Security Council for UN peace operations and when we participate in such operations with U.S. troops.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive sets forth three increasingly rigorous standards of review for U.S. support for or participation in peace operations, with the most stringent applying to U.S. participation in missions that may involve combat. The policy directive affirms that peacekeeping can be a useful tool for advancing U.S. national security interests in some circumstances, but both U.S. and UN involvement in peacekeeping must be selective and more effective.
2. Reducing U.S. costs for UN peace operations, both the percentage our nation pays for each operation and the cost of the operations themselves.
-- To achieve this goal, the policy directive orders that we work to reduce our peacekeeping assessment percentage from the current 31.7% to 25% by January 1, 1996, and propose a number of specific steps to reduce the cost of UN peace operations.
3. Defining clearly our policy regarding the command and control of American military forces in UN peace operations.
-- The policy directive underscores the fact that the President will never relinquish command of U.S. forces. However, as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the authority to place U.S. forces under the operational control of a foreign commander when doing so serves American security interests, just as American leaders have done numerous times since the Revolutionary War, including in Operation Desert Storm.
-- The greater the anticipated U.S. military role, the less like it will be that the U.S. will agree to have UN commander exercise overall operational control over U.S. forces. Any large scale participation of U.S. forces in a major peace enforcement operation that is likely to involve combat should ordinarily be or through competent regional organizations such as NATO or ad hoc coalitions.
4. Reforming and improving the UN's capability to manage peace operations.
-- The policy recommends 11 steps to strengthen UN management of peace operations and directs U.S. support for strengthening the UN's planning, logistics, information and command and control capabilities.
5. Improving the way the U.S. government manages and funds peace operations.
-- The policy directive creates a new "shared responsibility" approach to managing and funding UN peace operations within the U.S. Government. Under this approach, the Department of Defense will take lead management and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involve combat, whether or not U.S. troops are involved. This approach will ensure that military expertise is brought to bear on those operations that have a significant military component.
-- The State Department will retain lead management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that do not involve U.S. combat units. In all cases, the State Department remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to embassies and our UN mission in New York.
6. Creating better forms of cooperation between the Executive, the Congress and the American public on peace operations.
-- The policy directive sets out seven proposals for increasing and regularizing the flow of information and consultation between the executive branch and Congress; the President believes U.S. support for and participation in UN peace operations can only succeed over the long term with the bipartisan support of Congress and the American people.
The preceding extracts clearly illustrate that the United States takes a partisan approach to the United Nations and brazenly considers that consensus at the United Nations does not necessarily include the United States; where the United States does not consider UN consensus to be in synchronicity with its own self-interest. This, in and of itself, does not prove malevolence on the part of the United States; the US like most UN member states will not directly support a policy which seriously undermines its own security or national self-interest.
However, in addition to strategic and tactical reductions of funding to the UN (of which the US is a leading contributor), refusal to allow UN command of US forces where a direct US national interest exists, insistence on executive NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] control of all UN operations where combat is likely to arise, insistence on complete executive control over all UN peace keeping operations whether US troops are involved or not and taking complete control of how US participation in UN peacekeeping operations are disseminated to the US populace clearly indicates not only malevolence, but a structural attempt to take complete ownership of UN peacekeeping operations at the expense of other members of the UN Security Council. It should be noted that in the modern period, the largest and most destructive conflicts fought to date have all been the result of the United States expanding, by force, its military and political strategic reach throughout the world. By removing these conflicts from the pages of history, the global security environment is well within the control of moderate UN peacekeeping deployments.
It is difficult to perceive of a grander threat to the international composition of the UN, or its multilateral status.
In a Whitehouse memorandum19 to the Vice President Al Gore entitled "U.S. Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations" dated May 3rd 1994, the US attitude to the UN is further illuminated in the following extract:
Serious threats to the security of the United States persist in the post-Cold war era. History suggests that new threats will surface. The United States remains committed to meeting such threats through either unilateral or multilateral action, as our interests dictate.- Whitehouse memorandum to the Vice President, Al Gore. 3rd May 1994.
Circumstances have arisen and will arise in the future in which it will be in our interest to proceed in partnership with others to preserve, maintain or restore the peace. The United Nations (UN) can be an important instrument of such partnerships.
Participation in UN peace operations can never substitute for the necessity of fighting and winning our own wars, nor can we allow it to reduce our capability to meet that imperative. It can, however, serve, in effect, as a "force multiplier" in our efforts to promote peace and stability.
In concert with the above Clinton policy document, the role of the United Nations is clearly understood within the United States government as being subservient to the national and international self-interest of the United States. The United States has declared that it will seek its own self-interest within the UN and where the UN Security Council is asked by the General Assembly to intervene in some matter, the United States will act solely in accordance with its own self-interest. This policy would clearly lead to subjective action on the part of the United States within the Security Council and would migrate into subjective action on the part of the United Nations.
The policy document dated May 1994 and the memorandum dated May 3rd 1994 were the result of policy development over the course of a year. One month prior to these documents being finalised and circulated under the Clinton Presidency, on April 15th 1994, a Department of State action cable20 had been transmitted to US diplomats at the UN in New York. The cable instructed the diplomats to demand that United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda [UNAMIR] be withdrawn from Rwanda, without a Security Council resolution. The cable stated:
Department has considered the prospect of additional wide scale conflict and violence in Rwanda, and the threat that the relative immunity afforded to remaining foreign civilian and military personnel will end on April 15.- Action cable, U.S. mission to the United Nations.
Taking these factors into account department believes that there is insufficient justification to retain a UN peacekeeping presence in Rwanda and that international community must give highest priority to all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible.
Drawing on the foregoing, USUN is instructed to inform NSC colleagues that the United States believes that the first priority of the Security Council is to instruct the Secretary General to implement an orderly withdrawal of all/all UNAMIR forces from Rwanda, taking the necessary steps to ensure that the warring parties in Rwanda respect the safety of UNAMIR and other foreign civilian and military personnel until such time as their evacuation has [b]een completed. Mission is also instructed to make clear to other UNSC members that the United States does not believe that a Security Council resolution is necessary to implement this withdrawal (The SYG has authority to order this withdrawal under these circumstances)' and that we will oppose any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda.
In the current environment in Rwanda, there is no role for a United Nations peacekeeping force.
The statement was read out at the United Nations Security Council debate on Rwanda of 15th - 17th April 1994 in the presence of the Rwandan ambassador. The Rwandan ambassador reported the US position back to the Rwandan ultra-nationalist interim Council of Ministers who had already seized power and had already begun a policy of ethnic cleansing of the minority Tutsi population one week earlier on April 6th21. The ambassador had signalled that the UN would take no action. As a direct result, the ultra-nationalist policy of ethnic cleansing was discussed in light of the UN inaction; and a decision was made there and then to role the policy out nationwide.
Within one year, 800,000 people were dead.
On 17th May 1994, United Nations Security Council resolution 91822 disregarded US requests to completely withdraw UNAMIR forces allowing for an extended force of up to 5,000 to remain in Rwanda. The detachment would not reach full force until months later.
The United Nations had become an impotent, belated and unresourced witness to Genocide.
As a result of the Genocide, the Tutsi dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) launched an offensive to depose the Hutu's and took the Rwandan capital Kigali on 4th July 1994. By July 18th, the RPF had taken the whole country. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Hutu's fled Rwanda for Zaire where they consolidated within refugee camps. In a series of demarche's that took place in the region between 1994 and late 1995, again ignored by the United States and therefore the UN, the Hutu's coalesced into a militia force that again threatened Rwanda. Fearing invasion from the Hutu, Rwanda armed ethnic Tutsi in eastern Zaire in an attempt to arrest the Hutu offensive.
In August 1998, and as a direct result of these events, the Second Congo War (aka the Great War of Africa) began. The war involved eight separate nations and by its end in 2003, an estimated 5.4 million had been killed.
Indifference by the United States as a leading member of the Security Council, along with failure of the UN to correctly isolate and control the United States, had led to Genocide and then to a pan-continental war. In total, over 6 million had been killed. Many of them hacked or bludgeoned to death with clubs and machete's.
Reform of the United Nations
Reform of the United Nations is now of pressing concern. The initial founding principle that brought the United Nations into existence is partisan and given to over representation of the interests of the internecine United States. At its creation, the United Nations was reckoned to be a mechanism that would unite nation states around the world. To that end, both the General Assembly and Security Council were formed to provide a multilateral instrument for debate on international development polity qualified by multilateral enforcement. As the United Nations has evolved, the old order that brought it forward has also evolved and remains intransigent and obstinately in place. For many, this intransigence represents the values of internecine multilateralism in conflict with the international multilateralism of the United Nations. In its simplest form, the United Nations is under the influence of the very thing it was formed to prevent; Empire.
The role of the United Nations has always been in synchronicity with the major powers of China, Russia, the United States, France and the United Kingdom. However, as the United States fortunes have ebbed and flowed over the decades since the United Nations inception, the organisation has found its own fortunes implicitly linked to that of the United States. From 1945 to the early 1960's, the United States grew in influence and so did the UN. From the mid 1960's to the 1980's, the United States experienced a disrupted pattern of stop-start growth influenced by its interventions into indo-China and its quiet war with the former Soviet Union. During this time, the United Nations experienced a relative period of growth and decline. From the 1980's through to the early 1990's the United States grew steadily, and so did the UN. From 2001 to present, the United States has seen its military influence swell globally. Curiously, the bulk of the UN's work throughout that same period has been beset by complaints about its effectiveness. The multilateralism of the United Nations during this period, has experienced the most severe and persistent series of assaults since its initial formation. Even now in 2012, the relevancy of the United Nations is being questioned openly. As the internecine multilateralism of the United States Empire grows, so those assaults become more widespread.
In the modern period, and especially in the recent period marked by the spread of electronic communications, it is clear that power is now migrating away from the nation state and toward partisan autonomy. The Arab Revolution, the Occupy Movement, the Anti-Globalisation Movement, the Anti-Capitalism Movement and 'Other' campaigns have all dispersed the power of the nation state. At present, the nation state is attempting to regain its lost ground by attempting to take control and ownership over the autonomous toolset23. It is highly unlikely this tactic will succeed. For every attempt at recovery made by the nation state, the autonomous demarche is likely to prove withering. History shows that an idea that's time has come, is emboldened by suppression and euphoric at indifference. In the modern period and without the ability to reform, the United Nations could well find itself navigating an ocean of conflicts...all waged from within the ghostly nation state. There is no empire nor any army, at present or in the past, that could ever hope to manage or defeat such a conflict; identity is a realm in itself. For the first time in history, that realm is now globally liberated and free of the cloistered hand of its upbringing. It is only a matter of time before this realms first clumsy infant steps, become more refined, eloquent and purposeful.
The United States is a member nation state of the United Nations...and will be for the lifetime of its existence. As a nation state, the United States has the right to participate in the General Assembly of the United Nations. It may even take a semi-qualified role within the Security Council; despite the absolute values of the United States failing to synchronise well with the values of other member nation states of the UN nor with the values of the UN General Assembly as a whole. The United States has a corporate vision for democracy and enforces those values with chronic and targeted violence; its obstinate self-interest leaves it indifferent to all other necessities. This has been seen in its military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in its violent suppression of civil and human rights movements2425 throughout the domestic United States over the past two years. Its stated values of freedom, security and prosperity are fine and lofty ideals, but in isolation and bare of any other initiative, these qualities are representative only of a particular type of totalitarianism. This totalitarianism is coherently revealed in over-investment in unilateral militarisation26, supremacy of the freedoms of the American people over the freedoms of others27, and wholesale secondment of the wealth of the people to the private wealth of its elite28. This is the politic of empire...and ever it was so.
The fundamental problem the United States faces, lays in its corporate blindness to the values of others around the world. The United States often claims itself to be a place of religious tolerance, tolerance toward freedom of political thought, tolerance of economic ideology and tolerance of dissent. The United States has waged war on Islam29, war on Communism, war on protectionism and war on those who stand against its wars. The United States simply is not the great civilising entity it claims to be. This is not the product of the failure of its people, but more the product of the failure of its elites. No nation can claim to be united, if the voice of the people is poleaxed by the profit of division.
The economic disruption seen in late 2008 and throughout 2009 must surely be answer enough that the particular brand of corporate Capitalism that the United States is attempting to bring to the world, has the capacity to be deadly if not strictly controlled. Without that strict control, the world's future can be measured in years, not centuries, eras or millennia.
The safety of the people of nation states is now of paramount importance and well beyond the scope and reach of internecine multilateralism. The multilateralism of the United Nations is pre-eminent and is undermined by internecine multilateralism. In this regard, the Empire of the United States is a clear and obvious internecine threat to the peace. The fundamental properties of that threat, are revealed in the closeted and timid values of the empires allies. If that timidity alights around the world, there will be no freedom to be had of any kind.
In the domestic sphere; jobs, wealth creation and economy are important amendments to the well-being of the people. At the international level, the safety of the people is a supreme sovereign. To go before the United Nations General Assembly and place the domestic before the sovereign is the measure of this particular empire. At its heart its allies are uncommunicative and unresponsive. The international community is being harmed by the deficit of understanding that results.
The United Nations now faces perhaps its most difficult period. Calls for reform of the United Nations appear from member states that have grown tired of the effects of that internecine multilateralism as represented by the empire and have become frustrated with the uncommunicative and unresponsive nature of the empires corporate allies. For many throughout the international community, national development is a never ending cycle of perpetual reform and revision. Poverty, ignorance, nationalism, extremism, human health and human rights are on-going projects relating to the safety of the people that are perpetually in need of attention. When a government becomes convinced that it represents the apex of perfected governance, there is written the end of the nation state. At this level, apathy is lethal. The uncommunicative and unresponsive nature of the empires allies are not the result of reaching the zenith of governmental practise, but the result of corporate stupidity. This is the test the multilateral United Nations now faces; taking ownership of its problems and seeking reform of its underlying structures.
Throughout much of the world, and certainly around those areas in which the United States has its military encamped, the nation state is in distress. Greece, Spain, Egypt and Portugal are now in serious state of agitation. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the populace are tip-toing around swarms of armed gangs all created by empire and managed by the empires enemies.
In Libya, the tragedy of the people has now been enjoined by the reprehensible assault of a diplomatic mission, itself facilitated by an act of treachery from within the empires ranks. Ambassador Christopher Stephens was not raped, murdered and dragged through the streets by a terrorists gang, he was abandoned by his own staff and left to wander blindly through his mission dying at the hands of a group that were perfectly informed of his position...in the midst of election...with an eye toward political renovation. In the west, the resultant violence serves as an instrument in which the people and religions of the east can once again be proscribed...by the feckless and corporate 'middleism' of the western order.
The internecine multilateralism of empire, in competition with the multilateralism of the United Nations, brings forward a clear conflict. The instruments of that conflict, constitute the base properties of complex multipolarity.
If the United Nations is to remain relevant in the modern period, it must seek to elevate its presence above and beyond its internecine equivalent, in order to properly 'occupy' the wide vista of international peace and security.