Uniting for Peace was a UN General Assembly Resolution initiated by the United States because of the continuous vetoes the UN Security Council was facing, specially by the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. To circumvent the blockage of the executive body, the US, together with the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Turkey, Philippines and Uruguay drafted a resolution at the time of the Korean War, in the following terms:
“…if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
Resolution 377 (A) was adopted on November 3, 1950, after a discussion at the General Assembly that took 14 days. At the end, it was favored by 52 votes against 5 and 2 abstentions. Thanks to this resolution, it was possible for the United States to lead collective defense in Korea -this was not a UN peace keeping operation-, negotiate the exchange of prisoners of war, establishing a sanctions mechanism and a monitoring system. Besides Korea, the Uniting for Peace resolution was very relevant during the Belgian Congo Independence War, when the two major superpowers blocked each other’s initiatives and the Security Council could not approve a resolution to maintain a key peace keeping operation. Instead, the issue was taken to the General Assembly which extended the mandate of the blue helmets and helped establish a commission of UN member states to explore diplomatic solutions.
In 1956 during the Suez crises, the General Assembly voted for the establishment of a UN peace keeping force, mainly composed by Canadians, to be deployed and thus, contributing to a cease fire.
The role of the General Assembly as a peace maker is not well understood and there is a general perception that it is only the work of the Security Council to restore peace when violence erupts. When the United Nations was created, its founding fathers tried to avoid a situation similar to what the League of Nations faced, where both the Council and the Assembly did similar things. The UN Charter, however, allows the General Assembly to debate any matter of concern to the members and this is why it may address issues related to peace and security. This is why the General Assembly, outside of the Uniting for Peace resolution supported Guatemala during the dramatic civil war that hit the country in the 80’s, helping to develop a peace process, and also in Cambodia in the 90’s. In other countries like Sudan and Somalia, devastated by civil wars, again the General Assembly engaged in peace proposals. In both cases it was not either the Security Council or the General Assembly. In fact the later worked with the former to contribute to conflict management in violent contexts.
The General Assembly has also pushed for compliance with Security Council resolutions such as in the case of Namibia in the 80’s when South Africa pretended to remain as the administrator of the territory and perpetrated several human rights abuses and atrocities in it.
More recently, at the 79th General Assembly, Mexico, together with other UN members, pushed for the renewal of the Uniting for Peace mechanism which was in fact used to deal with the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. Sadly, in both cases, Russia has vetoed any UN Security Council resolution on Ukraine, and the US has vetoed any resolution that may “harm” its strategic ally Israel -in fact most of US vetoes at the UN Security Council have been casted to “protect” Israel from punishment.
Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, initially conceived for the reconstruction of Gaza, is also perceived as a tool for conflict management. Trump himself has been the mediator in more than a dozen conflicts all over the world, forcing the parties to cease fire by threatening them with trade sanctions. How sustainable can a cease fire be under those circumstances? Clearly Trump is not pointing at the roots of the conflicts but at their consequences.
Sustainable peace is a complex process that involves not only a ceasefire but peace building. It requires a decisive commitment not only by the conflicting parties but the international community to provide the resources to rebuild a territory harmed by conflict. It involves the reconstruction of basic infrastructure - including economic installations, hospitals, housing, water management - and the support of education and schools, the development of democratic elections, disarmament, landmines and other explosive remnants removal.. Without a sustainable process that accompanies countries or territories destroyed by conflicts, war may return to the area.
This is why the involvement of the UN System in peacebuilding and conflict management is needed well beyond what the UN Security Council does or does not. It is very unfortunate the UN is facing probably the worst financial crisis since the organization was born and the fact that member countries are not fulfilling their dues in time, does not help.
In recent months there has a been a lot of talk about a UN without the United States. To many this is impossible, if not for other reason because the US created and supported the UN System and this was made according to the interests of Washington. The fact that its creator is not willing anymore to support the institution is terrible news to the world and is leading other countries -like Israel, Argentina and other- to distance themselves from multilateralism.
The other problem is that the Board of Peace, as seen by Trump is considered an alternative to the paralysis of the UN Security Council of which the US is a permanent member with veto powers. But this is a false dilemma: is not either the UN Security Council or the Board of Peace, but if there is the political will to empower institutions enough to do their jobs. By erasing the United Nations from the equation, the world is being orphaned, with a Borad of Peace without the experience, neither the economic nor the diplomatic skills to build peace in a sustainable way.
Most of today’s politicians are short-sighted and they do not see impacts of their actions in the long term. This has to do with the perception that they need to build a reputation with visible and short-term successful policies that may encourage voters to approve their mandates. They do not see their countries in the future. They only see the present. It should not be that bad if it was not for the fact that short-term actions without a context and a global vision of the challenges cannot last. This is simply not sustainable.
The fact that two prominent members of the Board of Peace have initiated massive attacks against Iran, does not speak well of an institution whose other members remain silent whilst the Middle East is facing a terrible conflict situation that may escalate in the region and beyond -take a look at the strikes of Pakistan against Afghanistan, after months of tensions in the common border with mutual accusations, like children, about who started the fire. Is the Board of Peace going to address the situation? And if so, how? Because so far it has been the United Nations that makes calls for an immediate de-escalation of the fighting, while Iran, which shares borders with both nations, has offered to mediate. Yet, as explained, Iran is already facing attacks from Israel and the US -thus one may ask: can a war turned country be a peace maker?
Donald Trump is very much concerned about his legacy and that seems to be the main motivation for its foreign policy at times conciliatory -through mediation- at times punitive and aggressive -with military strikes included. But the making of an “America great again” requires more than palliatives and temporary “solutions.” It is worrisome that the UN is perceived as an institution composed only by the Security Council. This denies the relevance of the UN System as a whole, including the roles the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice and the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) play in matters as critical as peace and security, human rights and the promotion of development. The perception of the UN Security Council as the solely body aimed at dealing with conflicts and violence does not provide a good picture about the General Assembly’s and ECOSOC’s relevance in those agendas. The Board of Peace mentions little about these tasks and may serve mostly as an “American Express Club” - participants have been invited to contribute with 1 billion US dollars to provide financial certainty to its goals - whose members are more interested in being in good terms with Trump rather than managing the current challenging and complex international agenda. It is time for the Uniting for Peace resolution to enter the scenario to change the mood the Middle East and the world are facing.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
