ĭespite expressed public satisfaction, disappointment with the voting on these two resolutions may also have given added impetus to Washington’s diplomatic campaign. They make the emerging multivalent global order a reality. If China, Iran, Vietnam, and four of the Central Asian countries who voted against on April 7 are added, there are 24 countries with weight in the system who are capable of pushing back on divisive issues, six of whom are G-20 member countries. Those countries are India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh in Asia Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand in Southeast Asia Brazil and Mexico in Latin America Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda in Africa and Egypt and Jordan in the Middle East and North Africa. Of the 58 countries that abstained on April 7, at least 17 stand out as countries of consequence in their regions or the world because of their population size, GDP, possession of nuclear weapons, or cultural impact. On April 7, 2022, the UNGA adopted another resolution for Russia’s suspension from the UN Human Rights Council with 93 nations voting in favor, 24 against, and 58 abstaining from the process. Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Russia, and Syria voted against it, while 35 abstained. The resolution was sponsored by more than 90 countries and needed a two-thirds majority in the Assembly to pass. A total of 141 countries voted in favor of the resolution, which reaffirmed Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. On March 2, 2022, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution demanding that Russia immediately end its military operations in Ukraine. However, winning international support for one’s worldview is important for countries, even for global powers, and that is why Washington is currently engaged in intense diplomacy across the globe to forge as broad as possible a front to isolate Russia and contain China. Moreover, climate change is more than likely to trigger new conflicts. The debate will continue under the shadow of shifts in global power and strategic competition, but international consensus on a new world order remains a chimera. And in response to Western emphasis on democracy as a tenet of the “rules-based international order”, they say that every country has its unique history and culture and needs to take a path of development suited to its own realities. They say that international rules must be based on international law and must be written by all, that they are not the privilege of a few, and there should be no room for exceptionalism or double standards. Those on the other side of the divide are China and Russia, advocates of the law-based international order, who underline the central role of the UN and stress the centrality of multilateralism. Among those are treaties, international law, formal structures, institutions, and values at the center of which are democracy and respect for human rights. The West argues for the rules-based international order, the body of rules, norms, and institutions that govern relations. With the war in Ukraine, “the emerging world order” has become a current topic with conflicting opening gambits.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |