United Nations World Conference on International Telecommunications: Low on Expectations

United Nations would be taking a new stride towards reviewing international telecommunication trends in the upcoming UN Conference on International Telecommunication in Dubai. The conference scheduled for December would be convened by the International Telecommunication Union, which is a specialized body of United Nations. The conference holds great importance in view of the recent events which have brought transformational changes across various parts of the world, and the role played by modern communication systems in triggering and regulating them.

The ongoing conflict in Syria has reflected a divided perspective of the global powers on the democratic transformation in the Arabian region. Russia and China have dissented from a collaborative effort to curb the internal violence in the country; which is still on a rise. The dissent of both Russia and China apart from being influenced by the power politics in the Middle East region, also traces itself back from the pro-socialist political atmosphere gestated by them. A liberal averment on free flow of information cannot be an acceptable standard for both Russia and China in the current circumstances, especially observing the recent events where autocratic governments have been brought down by the havoc of networking.

Also among the biggest bidders of democracy and human rights, the concept of free information sharing does not seem getting much relief. The recent Wikileaks waves which stunned United States and the European nations doesn't seem to give good vibes for a fully liberal approach from the pro-democratic block either. The anticipation has already started brewing towards adoption of a more conservative approach in the upcoming conference. Secret negotiations have been reported going on among dozens of countries. The orientation of talks appears significantly inclined towards diminishing economic growth and restrict free flow of information. Though United States has vowed to defy any move threatening Internet's current regulatory structure or online censorship, the changing perspective of US lawmakers has been observed in the recent PIPA and SOPA legislative bills which did seek to establish controlling mechanism on free dissemination of information.

There may be disagreements among countries on extensive control over Internet and an overhaul of the current regulatory mechanism, but they do seem to share a common interest in extending their control over information sharing through internet and other platforms to a certain extent. The solidarity among nations on the issue though hasn't surfaced yet, but possibility of a tacit formulation cannot be denied making the upcoming conference pliable for more stringent regulations on information sharing in the coming days.

UNSC then UNGA - How does it make sense?

Despite a disheartening failure at the Security Council, the League of Arab States has preferred not to give up. They're now before the UN General Assembly with the same demand of deposition for President Assad, and this time the way doesn't seem as hopeless as it was at UNSC. The much popular "double veto" though became one of the trending topics everywhere, was quite anticipated much before the voting process. But, this time the things are very much different. It's UNGA, no veto and an obvious support of the majority, which has made the passage of the resolution almost certain.

Although, the move holds complete procedural validity. It has been brought under Article 11(2) of the UN Charter which empowers the General Assembly to look into any matter pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security, my doubt lies on the importance and effectiveness of the move. I've two questions:-

Does this move has the ability to make the change happen?
Can there be a substantive culmination of this resolution?
Let's evaluate the above two doubts raised on the merits of the provisions prescribed under the UN Charter.

Article 11(2) through which the resolution has been brought up itself doesn't bestow a conclusive character to the resolutions passed in the assembly. The article goes like this,
"The General Assembly may discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security brought before it by any Member of the United Nations, or by the Security Council, or by a state which is not a Member of the United Nations in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 2, and, except as provided in Article 12, may make recommendations with regard to any such questions to the state or states concerned or to the Security Council or to both. Any such question on which action is necessary shall be referred to the Security Council by the General Assembly either before or after discussion."

So, going by the highlighted words, UNGA is impotent to bring about a conclusive decision without the final affirmation of the UNSC, which means that despite the passage of the resolution in the General Assembly, it doesn't obtain any substance to cheer about. It's bound to go through another discourse of disparity in the UNSC which has already shown disinterest in averring it once. We've our first question answered here. The General Assembly doesn't have any absolute ability to make the change happen.

Now, the second question requires a re-examination of the prevailing conditions. As it has already been shown that the resolution will be moving down the UNSC again, a successful culmination of the resolution is completely contingent upon the change of the stances of the dissenting countries.

The statement of the Russian Permanent Mission to the UN as recorded after the vote in the Syrian resolution avowed its confidence in the ability of Syria to forge a political settlement, which was equivocally supported by the Chinese ambassador. The statements have seen no change since then. Both the countries are still on the same track, though criticizing the turbulence but imparting confidence in the recovery of political stability without the sanctions. This has got us very close to the answer for the second question, which is another episode of the no-hoper resolution. It's destined to fail again and no diplomatic efforts seem able enough to stop this fall.

This whole affair comprehensively stinks as a waste. Diplomacy isn't a mere thing to be practiced, it always carries an aim, an end which it targets to achieve. In this case, the efforts themselves have fallen short of credibility. They seem to be going nowhere, but still international press has got a lot to report, and so is it doing, appreciating the step and scathing the conditions of the country.