To Putin or not to Putin
By Daniel Raynolds
A fierce debate has been ongoing within the international community both in favour and against the UN Chief’s attendance at the BRICS summit in Russia.*
Critics, like political scientist Professor Alexander J. Motyl, argue that the UN Secretary-General’s cordial engagement with Vladimir Putin compromises the moral authority of the UN, and the call for Secretary-General’s resignation underscores a belief that leaders must take clear stances against tyranny to uphold justice and accountability.
Conversely, risk analyst Bahauddin Foizee defends the UN Chief’s approach as essential for fostering dialogue and potential peace. He posits that engaging with controversial leaders is necessary to avoid sidelining key players in conflict resolution efforts.
His argument emphasizes the complexity of global diplomacy, where rigid moral positions can hinder meaningful progress.
The contrasting perspectives on Secretary-General’s actions at the summit raise critical questions about the UN’s role in a fractured international landscape: Should the organization be a moral arbiter, or prioritize pragmatic engagement?
*”The BRICS is a forum for cooperation among a group of leading emerging economies. The BRICS includes 9 countries – Brazil, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Russian Federation, South Africa, United Arab Emirates.” (International Labour Organisation).
Daniel Raynolds writes opinions and reviews about various topics, including human rights violations across the world. He has been published, among others, on The New Federalist, Foreign Policy News, Eurasia Review, International Policy Digest, GAC European Union Politics, Washington Politics Blog, OnLine Opinion (Australia).
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
3 comments
Login here Register here-
Bert
-
Canguro
-
A Commentator
Return to home pagePutin, just like any other leader needs to be part of the conversation.
You do not need to agree, but while there is dialogue, points of difference can be discussed, put on the table, negotiated.
By shutting leaders such as Putin out of discussion makes such a discussion impossible
“Critics, like political scientist Professor Alexander J. Motyl, argue that the UN Secretary-General’s cordial engagement with Vladimir Putin compromises the moral authority of the UN, and the call for Secretary-General’s resignation underscores a belief that leaders must take clear stances against tyranny to uphold justice and accountability.”…
This position seems somewhat odd. There are numerous instances of egregious behaviour by myriad countries – all members of the UN – where the so-called ‘moral authority’ of that body counted for diddly-squat. Millions of words both written and spoken have been generated on behalf of loftier ideals & better behaviours of member nations, often to little or no avail.
Prof. Motyl and others are of course well within their right to argue these positions, others, perhaps more pragmatic, might point out that the UN is riddled with compromise, hypocrisy, self-serving members as well as those committed to democracy at the point of the sword, or that part of the gun where the projectiles emerge.
The Secretary-General, to his credit, has been unwavering in his clarion calls to the international communities for concrete action wrt the burgeoning consequences of global warming. I expect a time may come at some point in the future when the general lament will be… ‘if only we’d listened.’
When the United Nations General Assembly vote was 143 to 5 to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a boycott of BRICS because it is held in Russia is probably unnecessary.