Skip to main content

For a Value-Based Foreign Policy : Detlef Palm

by Detlef Palm

I remain thoroughly shocked by the vote of the UN General Assembly on Resolution ES‑11/1, deploring the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.

Thirty-five countries abstained. Some observers opine that these countries constitute the majority of the world’s people.

Should we conclude that half of the world’s mothers and fathers and children have no opinion on war and destruction and people killing each other? I, for once, firmly believe that the majority of people of China, India and Brazil do not want war; they do not want to kill people, and they don’t want people to be killed.

It is also difficult to assume that those who abstained from the vote at the General Assembly did not know what is going on, or whom to trust or not to trust. We pedestrians may be reduced to watching the evening news or googling our favourite conspiracy theorist, but the ambassadors must have their own sources from which to form their unbiased opinions.

It is impossible not to have an opinion about a war. Not condemning the unprovoked invasion of another country is tantamount to considering it legitimate or at least vaguely justified. This sounds outrageous and it is outrageous. Or do anyone of 35 presidents or prime ministers plan to shake hands with Putin anytime soon, and pose for joint group photographs at some conference?

As a manifestation of foreign policy, the non-vote of the 35 reflects thoughtless political opportunism driven by selfish motives. Some countries do not want to sour the relationship with their supplier of gas and weaponry; some may hold loyalties for aid received some decades ago; and some may simply wish to make a point against western hegemony. Some may refer to pragmatic necessities – but this UN vote was not about making deals, but about forming a collective opinion about our world order. The 35 countries abandon the basic core principles that all of us hold dear – such as not to start a war, note to use brute force and violence without concern for human life, not to create havoc on other countries, or not to solve a conflict by creating another bigger one.

I am not saying that all the 141 countries that voted for the Resolution are no opportunists. Many of them just found themselves on this side, because their self-interest coincided with the intent of the resolution.

But time has come to base foreign policy decisions on the universal values of our global community. The United Nations have the instruments, not least the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and many other Conventions. Let us stop the cynics, bean counters and worrywarts, and let us be true to our values, for once.

Comments


  1. Dear Detlef, I am pleased about your statement. The voting of the 35 countries showd again that they have not understood the spirit and values of the UN. To name the three biggest one, China one could expect and to some extend Brasil (with it´s chief little Trump) but India proved to me very disapointing for me. Certainly, the set-up of the Security Councel should be changed asap. Who still believes that reforms are possible?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Detlef:

    Enjoyed your piece, but have some observations, the G.A votes represent the sentiments of Govts, but as you well know, in so many countries this does not necessarily those of most people or even significant numbers of people. I think, in terms of India's vote, the FM said in an interview that it did not signify that India agreed with everything that Russia is doing, on the other hand, Russia is an old and tried friend. Actually, in this instance, when the time is ripe, India may be more effective interlocutor to get Russia to the negotiating table. If one is a non European of any stripe, then its interesting that Russia along with the Ukraine, Poland and others share one attribute: a common racism vis a vis Africans, Middle Easterners and South Asians, verified by their common mistreatment of the tens of thousands of students displaced. So, Freedom yes, but only for Europeans!! Oh yes, and the spirit of the U.N Charter, I guess where one sits defines how one looks at the world, but today, its actions that count not statements. I think it was Palmerston the 19C British Foreign Secretary who said: " England has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only her interests are eternal".

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wonder, how many of the succeeding Presidents and leaders of the G5 will remember Truman's speech on that historic day when the UN charter was signed. Lest we forgot, here is a short clip from YouTube of part of the actual speech.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaxzCZJZeu4

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Tauhidur for linking us to this remarkable speech. I wonder how many presidents and leaders even remember that there is a UN charter. Detlef

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

If you are a member of XUNICEF, you can comment directly on a post. Or, send your comments to us at xunicef.news.views@gmail.com and we will publish them for you.