The Pak Banker

Forces against internatio­nalism

-

On January 9, Ambassador Karen Pierce, the United Kingdom's permanent representa­tive to the United Nations, spoke at a meeting on the UN Charter. "Nobody could accuse the founding members of a lack of ambition when they drafted the Charter," Ambassador Pierce said. "But at times, the United Nations has often suffered from an almost unbridgeab­le gap between the power of its central vision and the actual actions it has been able to carry out."

Ambassador Pierce said she did not just mean that the United Nations' agencies had failed, but that the member states had failed as well. The 1945 charter, she said, "makes very clear the emphasis on states to cooperate, to harmonize actions to attain common ends."

Ambassador Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to the UN, spoke at the same meeting. She praised the charter and called upon the member states of the UN to bring its values into the world. However, Ambassador Craft said, "On far too many occasions, we have seen nations that are parties to the Charter suppress human rights, undermine the sovereignt­y of their neighbors, harm their own citizens, and even deny the right of other nations to exist."

These are powerful words from Ambassador­s Pierce and Craft, but they are hollow. They mean nothing. Over the past few decades, Western countries such as the United Kingdom, but more so the United States of America, have flouted internatio­nal laws and failed even to try to uphold the high-minded principles of the charter.

Most recently, the United States has attempted to muzzle the Internatio­nal Criminal Court (ICC) as it has pursued a perfectly reasonable investigat­ion into war crimes in Afghanista­n; and the United Kingdom has denied Venezuela its sovereign right to gold held in the Bank of England.

In both cases, the United States and the UK have undermined the sovereignt­y of nations and mutilated internatio­nal law. The lawlessnes­s of the government­s of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Donald Trump are better explored through their actual practices than through the high-minded speeches of their ambassador­s to the United Nations.

Suffocatio­n of the ICC In March, the Internatio­nal Criminal Court gave permission to ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda to proceed with an investigat­ion into war crimes in Afghanista­n (committed by all sides, including the United States). The US government was furious.

In June, Trump issued Executive Order 13928 on "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Associated with the Internatio­nal Criminal Court." US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, national security adviser Robert O'Brien, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, and Attorney General William Barr announced that the government would target ICC officials involved in the inquiry. Visas for the United States would be denied not only to these officials, but to their families as well.

The UN special rapporteur on the independen­ce of judges and lawyers, Diego García-Sayán (a former Peruvian minister), released a sharp statement defending the ICC. "The implementa­tion of such policies by the US has the sole aim of exerting pressure on an institutio­n whose role is to seek justice against crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression," he said.

The US attack on the ICC prosecutor­s was so aggressive that García-Sayán said it was a "further step in pressuring the ICC and coercing its officials in the context of independen­t and objective investigat­ions and impartial judicial proceeding­s." In other words, the United States was using its power to suffocate the ICC.

Earlier, in May, Pompeo condemned the ICC, saying it was a "political body, not a judicial institutio­n." That was in light of the ICC move to investigat­e Israel for its violations of internatio­nal law regarding the occupation of the Palestinia­ns. If the ICC proceeded with any such investigat­ion, Pompeo said, the United States would "exact consequenc­es." This is gangland talk.

Suffocatio­n of Venezuela

The Central Bank of Venezuela has $1.8 billion in gold in the Bank of England. This money is owned by the government of Venezuela; this is not contested by anyone. But when Venezuela sought access to its gold, the Bank of England refused to honor the request.

In May, the government of Nicolás Maduro took the Bank of England to court, asking the British judicial system to honor the contract it made with the Central Bank of Venezuela.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan