It seems as though Trump’s proposed ‘Peace Board’,
initially mooted as part of the ‘peace plan’ for Gaza, is being given a much
wider remit by its sole owner and proprietor, one Donald Trump. It looks more
like an attempt to replace the UN with a handpicked core membership (to include
a chair for life appointed because he’s called Donald Trump, as well as that well-known purveyor
of peace, former UK PM Tony Blair, and Trump’s son-in-law, Secretary of State,
and special envoy), and a wider membership to be invited to participate by the
chair. This wider group includes one Vladimir Putin, a man particularly
well-known for his love of peace, and that staunch defender
of democracy, Lukashenko of Belarus. Those accepting membership can opt to
upgrade to a premium membership in exchange for handing the chair a mere $1
billion (to be spent as decided unilaterally by the chair), whilst anybody who
turns down an invitation can expect to be hit with further tariffs (such as the
proposed 200%
tariff on French wines and champagne which Macron has earned by politely
declining. Like any good mafia don, Trump is making people offers that he
thinks they can’t refuse.
That there are problems with the UN is undeniable. Reaching
a consensus is a difficult and time-consuming task, especially when five
permanent members of the Security Council have a veto. It’s not entirely clear
exactly how Trump’s proposal overcomes that weakness, although he presumably
expects all members to simply accept his ultimate authority on all decisions. Theoretically,
that works, but practically it’s problematic even when he’s president of the
US; if he remains as chair when (or if) he ceases to be president, by what
power exactly does he impose compliance? That problem of seeking and achieving
consensus, leading to painfully slow decision-making, isn’t confined to the UN,
of course: the EU suffers from the same issue. The question we are faced with is
whether we accept that as a cost of seeking consensus and agreement through
negotiation, or whether we simply vest all power in an individual – or rather,
in Trump’s case, allow an individual to vest all power in himself. For all the
frustrations of dealing with a multitude of different parties with different interests
and agendas, I’m sure that I’m not alone in rejecting the dictatorship which is
what the alternative amounts to.
Here in the UK, another former UK PM has weighed in
with his
own take on the solution. It’s full of fine words, as in this paragraph: “The
democracies of the world should draft a short values statement, echoing the UN
charter’s starting point – “We the peoples …” – and this time showing we
mean it. Its first section would assert our full support for self-determination
and the mutual recognition of nation states*; for the outlawing of war and
coercion; and for the primacy of law, civil rights and democratic
accountability as the essential means by which human dignity is advanced. A
second section would outline the rules that govern the cooperation essential to
guarantee food, water and security, economic opportunity and social justice,
and climate resilience and health for all, including pandemic prevention”.
But it, too, is short on telling us how this can be enforced.
Both Trump and Brown have identified a real problem
when it comes to taking international decisions, but only Trump has come up
with a ‘solution’ – personal dictatorship by one D. Trump. The reality is that,
if we reject the ‘might is right’ approach of Trump, there is no simple
solution. Not electing people who are clearly deranged would help a little, but
there’s no obvious way of preventing that either.
* Obviously, Gordon Brown does not intend this to be taken
as being in any way support for nations not currently regarded as states –
Wales, Scotland, Catalunya etc. – having any right to self-determination. That
would never do.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment