UN Security Council 'unfit for purpose'
24 May 2012
The United Nations Security Council is "tired, out of step and increasingly unfit for purpose", according to a report by Amnesty International.
Amnesty's global human rights report directly criticised permanent security council member Russia for its use of a veto to forestall intervention in Syria, despite thousands of UN-documented civilian deaths and months of human rights abuses in the country.
Amnesty claims that Russia, which counts Syria as a major export customer, was protecting its own interests in repeatedly refusing to join in condemnation of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
"The courage shown by protesters in the past 12 months has been matched by a failure of leadership that makes the UN Security Council seem tired, out of step and increasingly unfit for purpose," Amnesty said in its report.
Salil Shetty, the organisation's secretary general, said politicians had responded to pro-democracy protests with "brutality or indifference".
"Governments must show legitimate leadership and reject injustice by protecting the powerless and restraining the powerful. It is time to put people before corporations and rights before profits," he said
"In the last year it has all too often become clear that opportunistic alliances and financial interests have trumped human rights as global powers jockey for influence in the Middle East and North Africa," he said. "The language of human rights is adopted when it serves political or corporate agendas, and shelved when inconvenient or standing in the way of profit."
Shetty also criticised "emerging powerhouses" such as India, Brazil and South Africa who have been "complicit in their silence".
"There is a clear and compelling case for the situation in Syria to be referred to the International Criminal Court for investigation of crimes against humanity. The determination of some UN Security Council members to shield Syria at any cost leaves accountability for these crimes elusive and is a betrayal of the Syrian people," said Shetty.
Political reforms within the Security Council member states, as well the completion of an Arms trade Treaty in July, would be the "acid test" for the UN, the report said.
"Ousting individual leaders – however tyrannical – is not enough to deliver long-term change," Shetty added. "Governments must uphold freedom of expression at home and abroad, take international responsibilities seriously, and invest in systems and structures that ensure justice, freedom and equality before the law."
HAVE YOUR SAY
24 May 2012
Han't that always been the case?
JC - UK
25 May 2012
1. Russia and China do not share the same moral values as other members of the UN SC hence they will give cover to regimes like President Assad of Syria out of self interest despite human rights violations.
2. The permanent members are the victorious nations at the end of WW2 and that doesn't reflect today's balance of power. However South Africa and Brazil would act like Russia and China and Germany would never agree to a use of force. So expanding the UN SC would only exacerbate the problem we have now.
Graham - High Wycombe
25 May 2012
The SC has used the veto for it's own ends since 1945, this is nothing new. The only way for action is unilaterally, but this is too risky in the middle east, it is interlocked and any action regarding Syria wold spark a larger conflict. The opposition by China and Russia has actually forestalled a wider conflict, however unintentional this is. The only way to resolve Syria is dialogue and in this the west needs to engage Russian influence over the Syrians.
I MB - Newquay
25 May 2012
Russia-Syria
America-Israel
Whats the difference
Both camps have their favourites that they will support no matter what.
Security council has outlived its usefulness
JC - UK