When I
scrutinise the foreign policies of permanent members of the UN Security Council
I find no real differences, when it comes to the pursuit of their national
interests. Each one of the five States is ready and willing to make use of
force and go beyond the diplomatic conventions, tread into illegality, when its
leaders think that the country´s national interests are at play. That´s
particularly true for each country´s area of influence and strategic
importance. It´s the case with China in the South China Sea, with Russia in
Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, the US in Syria and Iran, the UK in West Africa and
the Gulf Cooperation countries in the Persian shores, and with France in the
Sahel Region of Africa.
The strategic
options of these powerful countries take the primacy over the workings of the
UN or other international organisations. It´s a fact, as well, that some of
them do it more often than others. But when necessary, they will go for it.
Norms and international law are to be respected as long as they do not collide
with the views, ambitions and vital interests of the big five.
The primary role
of the UN Secretary-General and other international voices, as well as the
leaders of some key States such as India or Japan or South Africa, is to
constantly recall the international norms and obligations. But it is also to
look for points of equilibrium among the interests of the permanent members.
Their critical geopolitical interests are known. The challenge is to negotiate
taking them into account.
No comments:
Post a Comment