Perhaps more so than ever before is the question of a nation’s sovereignty balanced with its apparent obligation to the international community. We use the term “apparent obligation” because there is no clear definition or standard of what a country actually owes to that global community.
An organization, like the United Nations was established as a forum where countries might find a venue to settle differences and disputes. The UN evolved into a “non-governmental organization” where the combined efforts of its members could be put to better use collectively rather than singularly. The World Health Organization and World Food Program come to mind.
However, over decades the UN has tried to become some sort of almost-world government body with powers over individual nation states. Its legal powers are almost nonexistent, except to the extent that it members try to convince or bully other members into complying with want the majority of the members wants.
In principle, all countries are created equal. In fact, that is far from a reality. The five states that the UN Charter of 1945 granted a permanent seat at the UN Security Council (UNSC) are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Any one of these countries can veto any action that a majority vote of the full 15 members of the UNSC wishes to take.
There are some people who believe when a nation like the Philippines joins in a global collegial body like the United Nations or a regional group, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nation, willingly surrenders a piece of its sovereignty for the privileges and benefits of joining that group. President Duterte recently faced severe criticism for saying, “I was elected by the people of the Republic of the Philippines. I only answer to the people of the Republic of the Philippines.” This was in reference to comments from “foreigners” regarding the administration’s war on drugs.
But that does not sound too much different from something that happened at the United Nations General Assembly this past week. United States Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said the following in a speech to the 193-member general assembly before it adopted a resolution calling for an end to the US economic embargo on Cuba. “This assembly does not have the power to end the US embargo. It is based in US law, which only the United States Congress can change.”
Yet, the US wanted increased action against Venezuela as Haley said, “The crisis in Venezuela today poses a direct threat to international peace and security.” China and Russia would not even attend the meeting to discuss the issue.
This past week, the Philippines voted against a draft UN Resolution on the human-rights situation involving Myanmar’s Muslim Rohingya people. Russia and China also voted against it along with Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam. Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam—all Muslim majority countries—were in favor, while Singapore and Thailand abstained.
Philippine Ambassador to the UN, Teddy Boy Locsin Jr., summed up the situation clearly and identified where the Philippines must balance its sovereignty in regard to regional interests versus global concerns. “A yes [vote] is divisive and will kill Asean.”
The question of how far another nation or an organization of nations can go in forcing a sovereign country to change its actions is not going to be answered soon or easily.