Q&A: CAN THE WORLD COUNT ON THE U.N. TO FIGHT ISIS TERRORISTS?
Top officials for the United Nations last week
announced the terrorist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS, committed
crimes against humanity “on an unimaginable scale.” On Monday, the
international organization followed up by sending a fact-finding team to Iraq
to investigate these claims.
Whether the U.N. will act on its findings is yet to be
seen.
U.N. expert Brett D. Schaefer, who is the Jay Kingham
senior research fellow in international regulatory affairs at The Heritage
Foundation, argues that the United States must be “realistic” in dealings with
the organization.
What that means, he explains, is “supporting it where
U.S. interests can be advanced while being unafraid to explore alternative
options when it proves unproductive.”
In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal,
Schaefer, editor of the 2009 book “ConUNdrum,” assesses the U.N.’s report on
ISIS, sharing where he thinks the organization will help – or hinder –
America’s fight against the terrorist threat. In some cases, he says, America
must act alone.
>>> Commentary: 11 Reasons Why ISIS Might Be
More Dangerous Than al-Qaeda
Q: The United Nations just put out a report stating
ISIS, or the Islamic State, has committed crimes against humanity in Iraq and
Syria. What does the U.N. mean and why did it take so long for the world body
to respond to an international crisis?
A: Crimes against humanity are serious crimes – murder,
slavery, torture, rape, etc. – committed against a civilian population in a
widespread and/or organized manner. The first notable definition was codified
under the Nuremberg trials after World War II. The U.N. report accuses ISIS of
torture, murder, acts tantamount to enforced disappearance, and forcible
displacement of a civilian population committed at a scale rising to crimes
against humanity.
The report is the eighth report of the Independent International
Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, which was established in
August 2011. Thus, the U.N. actually has been paying attention to events in
Syria for quite some time.
However, it is important to note that the U.N. report
was not initiated in response to ISIS, but as an inquiry into “alleged
violations of international human rights law since March 2011 in the Syrian
Arab Republic.” Although ISIS has existed for over a decade in various
iterations, it first became really prominent as a concern only a couple of
years ago.
The crimes of ISIS have been included in the report
because they have been committed, in part, in Syria, and fall under the mandate
of the commission. It is fortunate that an existing inquiry was underway that
could look into ISIS acts in Syria. In response to ISIS actions in Iraq, the
Human Rights Council voted to send a fact-finding team, which is expected to
report back in March 2015. This will complement the work of the commission.
Q: What is your assessment of the recommendations in
the U.N. report?
A: For the most part they are non-controversial. Calls
for sustaining funding for humanitarian efforts, for instance, are justified
and are consistent with current actions of the U.S. and other nations.
In many cases, however, they are unlikely to be
realized. For example, there are a number of pleas for improved behavior by the
combatants, e.g. to respect and comply with human rights and international humanitarian
law, reject violence and respect freedom of religion, to cease using illegal
and indiscriminate weapons, and to allow access to the country by the
commissioners, human rights monitors and humanitarian workers.
Obviously, these outcomes would be good. But experience
over the past few years, with repeated willful violation of these principles by
multiple combatants, provides little reason to believe that such appeals will
be successful.
Q: Would following these recommendations counter the
threat of ISIS? How much action would the U.S. be required to take
unilaterally?
A: The commission calls on the international community
to enact an arms embargo and on the U.N. Security Council to “enhance the
enforcement and implementation of international human rights and humanitarian
law through the range of powers and measures at its disposal.”
The Security Council passed resolution 2170 on Aug. 15,
which condemns terrorist acts committed by ISIS and its indiscriminate killing
and deliberate targeting of civilians and other atrocities; calls for those
committing crimes to be held accountable; and applies an asset freeze, travel
ban and arms embargo “to ISIL [or ISIS], ANF, and all other individuals,
groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida.”
The resolution also demands that ISIS cease all
violence and terrorist acts; demands that foreign fighters supporting ISIS
withdraw; and calls on states to impede the movement of individuals seeking to
join ISIS, block transfer of financing, supplies and arms to ISIS, and observe
sanctions to six specified individuals linked with ISIS.
ISIS has little interest in entering the international
community, and moral appeals and ostracization will a have minimal impact.
Although it has a part to play, the U.N. lacks the capacity and means to back
and impose its demands, and relies on its member states to support, implement
and enforce them.
The U.N. doesn’t have its own army – the member states
must provide troops tor peacekeeping – and, regardless, U.N. peacekeepers have
proven to be poor war fighters historically. Compliance with Security Council
resolutions can be haphazard among nations, either from disagreement or limited
capabilities. Few countries outside the U.S. are willing or capable of taking
military action to deter ISIS.
Q: When it comes down to it, if the U.N. does want to
act, is it correct that a country such as Russia or China could block action
because it’s a Security Council decision? How does that work?
A: Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council can
adopt a resolution that is, in theory, binding on all member states. However,
it is not uncommon for countries to ignore or only partially comply with
resolutions.
There are 15 members of the Security Council. Ten
members are elected by the General Assembly. China, France, Russia, the United
Kingdom, and the United States (the victorious allies of World War II) are
permanent members of the Security Council.
A resolution can pass the Security Council with nine
positive votes. However, each of the permanent members of the Security Council
possesses a veto and can unilaterally block any resolution.
Q: What is the point of the U.N. if it can’t or doesn’t
act during such a crisis?
The United Nations was created to maintain
international peace and security, promote self-determination and basic human
rights, and protect fundamental freedoms. Regrettably, the U.N. has produced
more disappointment than success in realizing these high aspirations. A great
deal of the blame for this failure is due to divergent interests among the
member states that have prevented the organization from taking decisive, timely
action.
However, the U.N. can serve a valuable purpose as a forum
where nations can debate shared concerns and collaborate on joint efforts to
address them and some initiatives, like peacekeeping missions, are often more
politically acceptable as a U.N. operation than they would be otherwise.
The United States must be realistic in its dealings
with the U.N. and have a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of
the organization, supporting it where U.S. interests can be advanced while
being unafraid to explore alternative options when it proves unproductive.
Q: Is there anything in this situation that the U.N. is
uniquely qualified to address?
A: The U.N. inquiry does provide, in this instance, an
objective assessment of the situation in Syria, and its condemnation of the
actions of the Syrian government and ISIS is useful. The U.N. is also an
important vehicle for providing humanitarian assistance.
Because nearly every nation is a member of the U.N.,
the organization can be uniquely helpful in mobilizing resources and conveying
assistance. If, for instance, the U.S. tried to provide assistance directly,
its efforts would be viewed as partisan by some combatants and its citizens
would be targets. While not immune – U.N. workers are occasionally targeted –
they are typically seen as neutral actors.
Q: What’s the question here about the U.N. that isn’t
being asked or understood?
Although the U.N. frequently condemns terrorism, as it
did in resolution 2170, it is important to understand that the U.N. has never
agreed on a definition of terrorism.
The main impediment is that Muslim countries insist, as
stated in the 1998 Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: “All cases
of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle, against foreign
occupation and aggression for liberation and self-determination, in accordance
with the principles of international law, shall not be regarded as [a
terrorism] offense.”
In other words, Palestinian acts of terrorism against
Israel must be excluded. The failure to define terrorism inhibits U.N. efforts
to combat it.
