Contributing Writers: Azad Ali, Tangerine Clarke,
Nelson King, Vinette K. Pryce, Bert Wilkinson
GENERAL INFORMATION (718) 260-2500
Caribbean L 10 ife, APRIL 16-22, 2021
By James A. Paul
NEW YORK, Apr 12 2021
(IPS) – Commentators talk
about a “new Cold War”
between the United States
and China. They sometimes
conclude that the geopolitical
rivalry between these two
major powers has ruined the
effectiveness of the UN Security
Council through hostile
vetoes and other barriers to
Council action.
In fact, however, damaging
rivalry on the Security
Council is nothing new. The
Council has always been
hobbled by vetoes and other
special privileges of the Permanent
Members.
Geopolitical rivalry
between the Permanent Five
– the US, UK, France, China
and Russia –has been a standard
feature of the Council
since its earliest meetings
75 years ago, repeatedly preventing
the body from fulfilling
its mandate.
Today’s US-China clash
has affected the Council,
of course, but not nearly as
severely as Great Power rivalries
in the past.
Some analysts have argued
over the years that the Council’s
ten Elected Members
have moderated the body’s
oligarchic tendencies and
given it a more effective and
“democratic” character. But
this is a pipe dream.
Elected Members have a
very secondary role, even
when they are rich or very
populous, like Germany or
India. They have a short, twoyear
term in office and the
Council’s rules are stacked
against them. The Permanent
Members act ruthlessly
(if decorously) to hold onto
their privileges and to gain
global advantage.
Planning for the foundation
of the United Nations
was undertaken during World
War II, by the “Big Three”
– or the “Three Policemen”
as President Roosevelt liked
to say in private. The US,
Britain and the Soviet Union
sought to take control of
world “security” and ensure
domination over their own
spheres of influence.
As the archives make
clear, they wanted control
over natural resources and
markets for their products
and other material benefits –
though of course this control
was presented in more palatable
terms like “preserving
the peace.”
Eventually, before the
UN Charter was finalized,
France and China were invited
to join the oligarchy as
junior partners. The rest of
the nations had to accept
the arrangement: take it or
leave it.
Over the years, there have
been many forms of conflict
among the five. The
first systemic rivalry pitted
old imperial rivals – Britain
and France – against more
recent powers – the United
States and the Soviet Union.
As independence movements
challenged the colonial
overlords and liberation
wars erupted, “Big Three”
solidarity collapsed and the
Council was unable to act.
Britain and France, using
vetoes and other means, systematically
blocked Council
action that would threaten
their colonial authority.
The Council could not
even hold debates or discussions
on most colonial conflicts,
not matter how brutal
and bloody. Algeria, Kenya,
Vietnam, and many other
wars disappeared from the
Council’s purview.
From the earliest years,
then, it became clear that the
Security Council was not an
instrument for even-handed
peacemaking (as many internationalists
and peace-advocates
had hoped) but a scene
of politely ferocious diplomatic
rivalry and maneuvering
for global advantage.
The colonies won their
independence eventually,
with help from the UN General
Assembly, but not thanks
to the Security Council.
Then there was the “Cold
War” between the United
States and the Soviet Union,
flaring up in the late 1940s
and continuing until the late
1980s. Each sought hegemony
in the decolonizing global
order.
This rivalry, too, had a
great impact on the Security
Council and led to many
vetoes and organized inaction
on wars and conflicts
worldwide. The Soviets
used the veto on conflicts
in Czechoslovakia, Hungary
and other places, while the
United States and its allies
similarly blocked Council
action on Vietnam, Palestine,
Cuba, Cyprus, Western
Sahara, and many other
lands.
The multiple rivalries
around the globe resulted
in Council gridlock that was
considerably worse than what
we see today. The Council in
those days met infrequently
and its production of resolutions
and statements was
sparse.
By Caribbean Life
How many more times must
a Black person be shot and killed
by a police officer in America
before this country fully realizes
that something has gone terribly
wrong?
Daunte Wright, 20, joined the
list of casualties Sunday night
when a police officer shot and
killed him in a
“routine” traffic
stop in suburban
Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The
officer who pulled
the trigger on him
claimed it was a
tragic mistake; she
allegedly thought
she had pulled out
her Taser, not her
gun.
A Glock handgun,
similar to that
which the officer
had, weighs 34
ounces of heavy metal; by comparison,
a Taser, made largely of
plastic, weighs just eight ounces.
The weight difference alone
makes the officer’s claim almost
implausible.
Even if this incident was merely
a tragic mistake, as the officer
claims, it proves her incompetence
as a police officer — and
she should no longer be on the
force. But the first instinct to
draw her gun, rather than her
Taser, seemed to subconsciously
say it all.
Police unions and their supporters
in government have
bristled at any new governance
of police. In New York, they’ve
seethed at attempts to restrict
the use of chokeholds and ending
qualified immunity, which effectively
protects cops from being
sued for civil rights violations.
But this case — along with
other high-profile police deaths
such as George Floyd and Breonna
Taylor — further underscores
the urgent need for police reform
in America, and in New York.
There must be a culture
change within law enforcement
that ensures “equal justice under
law” for every American. In this
moment of time, we shouldn’t
have to live in a society where
families of color have to give “the
talk” to their children as to how to
behave in interacting with police,
lest they risk being shot.
No person in this country
should get behind the wheel thinking
that if they get pulled over for
an infraction, they may not live to
drive away. It is this scenario that
causes further anxiety among
Black and Brown Americans, and
further distrust in officers sworn
to protect and serve them.
The answer is not to tell them
not to be anxious or mistrustful.
The answer is to eliminate the
anxiety and mistrust by reforming
police departments to protect
citizens and officers alike — and
to get rid of any officer incapable
or unwilling to equally protect
and serve.
OP-EDS
Founded 1990 • Published by Brooklyn Courier Life LLC
A DIVISION OF SCHNEPS MEDIA
Corporate Headquarters: One Metrotech Center North, Suite 1001, Brooklyn, NY 11201
PRESIDENT & PUBLISHER: Victoria Schneps-Yunis
CEO & CO-PUBLISHER: Joshua Schneps
ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER: Ralph D’Onofrio
EDITOR EMERITUS: Kenton Kirby
ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Kevin Williams
This newspaper is not responsible for typographical errors in ads beyond the cost of the space occupied
by the error. All rights reserved. Copyright© 2021 by Brooklyn Courier Life LLC. Caribbean
Life is protected by Federal copyright law. Each issue of Caribbean Life is registered with the Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C. The Caribbean Life, its advertisements, articles and photographs, may
not be reproduced, either in whole or part, without permission in writing from the publisher except
brief portions for purposes of review or commentary consistent with the law.
The UN Security Council and
the ‘New US-China Cold War’
More than a mistake
A person lights a candle during a vigil
following the fatal police shooting of
20-year-old Black man, Daunte Wright in
Minnesota, in Washington, U.S., April 12,
2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein TPX IMAGES OF
THE DAY
Security council members vote on a nuclear nonproliferation
and nuclear disarmament resolution at a
Security Council Summit meeting during the United
Nations General Assembly, at the U.N. headquarters in
New York, Sept. 24, 2009. REUTERS/Mike Segar