Submitted by crinadmin on
Saudi Arabia has rejected its chance to occupy a seat on the UN Security Council, citing the UN's double standards and failures to do its duty on Syria, nuclear weapons and Palestine. "Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the UN security council's inability to perform its duties and shoulder its responsibilities," said the statement from the Saudi foreign ministry. Saudi Arabia is the leading supporter of armed Syrian rebel groups seeking to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad. The statement also complained that the UN had proved unable to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for decades and had failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction. Frederic Wherey, a Saudi expert at the Carnegie Endowment, said: "This is a dramatic but ineffectual gesture. The Saudis realised the tide of the security council was against them on portfolios they care about. But operationally, it doesn't mean much. It's more theatrics than substance." Saudi Arabia picked up 176 votes from the 193-member General Assembly to get onto to the Security Council last Thursday (16 October). The snub came around 10 hours later. Chad, Nigeria, Chile and Lithuania also secured seats and will serve two-year terms starting 1 January 2014. This is in addition to the Security Council’s five permanent members: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, and five other non-permanent members (currently Argentina, Australia, Luxembourg, Republic of Korea and Rwanda). The elections were unopposed, but the States still had to obtain approval from two-thirds of the 193-member General Assembly. Click here for more on the election process. The five permanent members have a veto power, meaning they can nulfilly a majority decision by the Council, whereas the non-permanent members do not. The veto has been the cause of much criticism of the Security Council's working methods and calls for reform. While the permanent members are the victors of World War II, the non-permanent membership is designed so each region is represented at all times and each country has a chance to be on the Security Council at least once. Chad's new position has caused human rights groups to call upon the African country to improve its human rights record, as it is on the UN's list of the worst States when it comes to children's rights violations in armed conflict. The Security Council’s main role is to help maintain international peace and security. This means the main issue it discusses when it comes to children’s rights is the recruitment and use of child soldiers in armed conflict. ‘Annex I’ and ‘Annex II’ are the Secretary-General’s ‘naming and shaming’ list of States which have violated human rights standards on children and armed conflict. The list is updated each year and included in the UN Secretary General’s report. You can find the latest one here. Annex I lists the worst offenders when it comes to children and armed conflict which are on the Security Council’s agenda (i.e. States it is watching closely). Annex II lists the States, although not on the Security Council’s agenda, where there are concerns about children in armed conflict. Chad is listed in Annex I. The State has signed an action plan as part of its efforts to be delisted. "Chad's election while listed on the U.N. list of shame of countries that use child soldiers should be another incentive for the authorities to end a backward practice that the Security Council has spent a great deal of time working against," said Human Rights Watch U.N. Director Philippe Bolopion. Campaign for transparency in the UN's top jobs As part of our campaign for transparency in the top jobs in children’s rights, we monitor UN appoints and elections, such as these to the Secretary Council, particularly in light of the elections of countries with terrible human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Chad. Are they the best people for the job? Was the election process fair and transparent? Further Information: