Does the “survival of the fittest” referring to natural selection extend to the terms of international relations? Money and muscle, in other words, wealth, technology, and military power, give you the authority to put in place your terms over the world.
Do we, the world citizens, approve of the way international affairs run in this age? Is it a bad idea to claim or want a just world ensuring equal rights and opportunities for the citizens as well as nation states?
Sure, every citizen has equal rights and opportunities according to the law. My question is: Can we enjoy those rights and opportunities fully?
The superbly powerful countries extend their tentacles into other countries’ affairs. In the name of protecting human rights, democracy, and justice, they go for action against anything that they deem incorrect.
We know about the stories of invading Iraq and Afghanistan, how the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were tortured, and also how the sovereignty of Pakistan was broken to kill Bin Laden. We also know about the continuous drone attacks in Pakistan.
Apparently, whoever has the clout can flout international laws. Shouldn’t all the countries honour and respect each other’s sovereignty?
In 2006, a 21-year-old Bangladeshi student, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, suspected to have links with Al-Qaeda, was arrested by Secret Service agents and later handed over to the FBI after being flown to the US with the help of local police from Dhaka. Evidently, it was okay to flout domestic laws in this case.
The right to self-determination in several parts of the world is ignored. We don’t see any prospect of resolving the issue of Kashmir in the near future.
Ultimately, the people of their respective lands are suffering. There is also the issue of flouting UN Resolutions. The comparatively powerful country wants to settle the issue bilaterally, but it’s already been more than six decades since the problem erupted.
Some are raising questions about whether or not the trial of war criminals in Bangladesh are meeting international standards. But these questions were not raised in other cases, like convicting and executing Saddam Hussein.
To maintain equality in the world, key international institutions can play leading roles. So, they should be made free from the influence of any state. These institutions should be endorsed by every UN member state. Chiefs of the international institutions should not be recruited only from the few most powerful countries.
The issue of surveillance by a couple of countries is another example of intruding into the internal affairs of others, disrespecting privacy and freedom – the things they claim to fight for themselves.
Equal rights and opportunities to the minority population in different countries are often ignored. The UN could be employed to monitor and help resolve the issue, and the respective state or authority may be tried by the International Court of Justice or by the International Criminal Court if it fails to uphold their rights.
With regard to the disputes on land boundary, new islands, or sea shores, the UN should interfere if the parties concerned fail to resolve the respective issue by themselves. It is necessary that the UN System works neutrally, giving equal rights and privileges to all the member states.
There should not be any permanent seat in the Security Council. All the 15 Security Council seats should be filled either by voting or rotationally by the member states.
Now is the time to make the UN system more democratic to establish justice, freedom, and equal opportunity to everyone. All the important international crises, including those that cannot be resolved bilaterally, may be brokered by the UN.
We want to see the UN playing that role. It is necessary to restore the confidence of the member states in the UN.
