It was a matter of might

Our front page lead story heading yesterday captured most tellingly, the essence of the odds Sri Lanka faced at the just concluded UNHRC sessions. It was indeed a question of 'Might overruling right.' While substantial satisfaction could be gained by this country over the fact that a sizeable 15 countries voted at the UNHRC against the US-propelled resolution and that eight countries abstained from voting, it is the consideration that those who abstained from voting did so under Western pressure, that Sri Lanka and progressive sections of the world should find most thought provoking. To make a long story short, the might of the West had the final say in a vital organ of the UN system which should base its operations on the tenets of justice and equity.

In fact, the ordeal just undergone by Sri Lanka should, among other things, highlight some of the more fundamental limitations of the UN system which have been crying out for rectification over the years. It is now abundantly clear that the most pivotal of the UN organs, the UN Security Council, for instance, is not representative of the current global distribution of political, military and economic power.

Besides, although the UN General Assembly is broadly representative of the collective interests of mankind, its voice is not sufficiently heeded by those powers of the West which have a preponderant presence in international affairs. There is the persisting Middle East conflict, which is yet to be resolved with any enthusiasm and vision on the part of the West, although it is plainly clear that an equitable resolution of the problem would require a positive move to end the grievances of the Palestinian people.

Therefore, the position could be taken that the UN system is weighted against the majority of mankind who belong to the category of the less powerful of the world system. It could be said that one of the most graphic and unsettling pointers to this anomaly was the resolution against Sri Lanka at the UNHRC. Whereas, a considerable number of countries represented in the UNHRC were supportive of Sri Lanka they were not in a position to openly demonstrate their support for this country on account of Western arm-twisting. As a result, many of them had to abstain from voting. Might and might alone had a say, while the moral majority had to remain silent and was forced into a position of helplessness.

That said, these comments should not be misconstrued to mean that Sri Lanka is having reservations about supporting the UN system. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sri Lanka will remain a firm supporter of the UN system but we are obliged to point out that UN reform should be brought back to the international community's list of priorities and concerns. Besides, the world should be in a position to hold the big powers accountable for their iniquities. Today, it is no secret that countries in our region, such as, Afghanistan and Pakistan are suffering many an indignity as a result of the actions of the major Western powers. For all this and more, these breakers of International Law should be brought to justice. But is the moral majority in a position to do so?

These are not questions the West could be expected to take on itself voluntarily and resolve. It would not do anything that would result in the current world power balance, which is decidedly in its favour, being changed. The efforts at changing this fundamental imbalance in ways that would benefit the less powerful would need to be initiated by the latter themselves. Accordingly, the developing world would need to think and act in concert on these issues from now on.

It could be seen that the issues being faced by Sri Lanka and many other questions which confront the developing countries, have very much to do with the relations of power between the world's mighty and the lesser powers. It is power that is at the heart of these questions. Accordingly, Sri Lanka and the rest of the developing world cannot cease the quest a just international political, military and economic order.