"Determining that the unprecedented extent of the Ebola outbreak in Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
The remarks of the United Nations Secretary-general (UNSG), referred to the COVID-19 pandemic as a threat to the whole world and the most challenging since World War II, discernibly demanding aggressive and effective responses to tackling the ongoing pandemic. COVID-19 was a lot of things - even a security crisis. Conveying the idea that the responses required to stem the tide of the COVID-19 pandemic may be akin to those required for the maintenance of international peace and security, and hence requiring responses emanating from the United Nations Security Council under its mandate of maintenance international peace and security.
Off the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN) system, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the organ that bears the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security and gets its teeth from Chapter V of the UN Charter. At the core of its primary responsibility are four pillars, one of which is its Art 39 power to determine and carry out actions to curb acts deemed threats to the peace, breach of the peace, and acts of aggression. The Charter, however, leaves undefined the exact scope of what might constitute a "threat to (international) peace," giving the UNSC considerable flexibility in determining conducts that rise to being a "threat to (international) peace." In this vein "threat to (international) peace." has expanded over the years to include a range of conducts from illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons to terrorist acts.
Through the 75 years of the UN's existence, by extension, the UNSC, the world has experienced a plethora of events. At every turn, the UNSC has had to determine which and how many of such events threatened or breached the peace and security of the international community, make a declaration to that effect, and take action to ensure that peace is stayed or restored. In this capacity, the UNSC, over time, has employed various tools in its arsenal to douse the flame of international insecurity, including the adoption of over 2,000 Resolutions, the establishment of 30 sanctions regime under its Chapter VII powers, 14 of which are current, and the creation of 71 peacekeeping missions, with 13 still operational. The Resolutions of the UNSC carry a legitimacy that gives it law-making characteristics quite unlike the other major organs of the UN. And the international community look to the UNSC resolution as a first point of reference in determining whether an issue borders on international peace and security. In a rapidly changing world, these range of options allows the UNSC to respond to events that constitute breaches and threats to international peace as they broaden and become multifaceted.
On January 10, 2000, for the first time, the UNSC considered whether a health issue was such as to bring it within the tenets of the UNSC's mandate as a "threat to peace." The conclusion was Resolution 1308 (July 17 2000) which stressed that "if left unchecked HIV/AIDS may pose a risk to stability and security." So while the debate was concluded on the premise that HIV/AIDS was not a "threat to peace" but that it could "threaten security," it put on the map the possibility that global health issues could raise such pertinent questions as to come squarely within the UNSC's mandate.
Fourteen years on with the Ebola outbreak, the issue came up again for debate, and the UNSC response to the Ebola epidemic was unprecedented. The UNSC's response expressed to the world that such global health issues as Ebola attend to threats of international peace and security and that with international cooperation, the international community could rise to the task, and stem the tide of infectious diseases to ensure that the peace is maintained. In addition to the glaring health impact on the epidemic, there was an overwhelming economic component. As the Ebola crisis ravaged nation-states in West Africa in 2014, Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone faced economic sanctions and embargos that threatened to cripple their economy. Thus creating an unstable supply of petroleum product, reversing hard-won peace and security in many fragile and conflict zones within the region, and aggravating the spread of ebola by limiting humanitarian aid almost bought to a halt by limitation imposed on air travel to the area.
Following a clarion call by the three leaders of Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone, the UNSC responded in its 7268th meeting on September 18, 2014, by adopting UNSC Resolution 2177 (2014). The Resolution was aimed at the "coordinated international response to end the outbreak…" by providing support to the affected economies and addressing concerns on the detrimental effects on trade and travel restrictions, which had the effect of impeding humanitarian intervention. The analogy of it all was that the UNSC determined that a global health concern was a matter of international peace and security requiring an international response, by stating "…that the unprecedented extent of the Ebola outbreak in Africa constitutes a threat to international peace and security."
How? With ongoing health challenges of global concern; such as epidemics, and pandemics, humanitarian aid could be severely limited, and the eyes of the world are almost shut to persisting inequalities and human rights abuses that occur. It presents opportunities for different state actors to strengthen their hold overpower and weaken political opposition. In these situations, conflict thrives – thus allowing social tension, fear and confusion rise. With limited accountability for perpetrators and very limited or non-existent access to justice, budding conflicts and fragile conflicts escalate. Worse still transitioning, and post-conflict regions have the propensity to fall back into conflict, especially over the distribution of limited health and safety needs.
Six years after and an ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, does the question still hold true? Is global health still a question of international peace and security? While the UNSG referred to COVID-19 as "an enemy" of the whole world, an invisible yet potent threat, the triumph over this enemy the UNSG stated would involve international cooperation, multilateralism and even a global ceasefire. Despite the political will to address the pandemic exercised in the General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/74/270 and A/RES/74/274 and the clarion call of the UNSG which resonated across the world, only the UNSC's law-making characteristics and primacy on issues bordering on international law and security can effectively address the import of COVID-19 as one that touches the "international peace and security" core.
After several attempts at negotiating an agreement, political manoeuvring, and lengthy debates about the precise wording of a resolution that would address the many ways the pandemic threatens international peace and security. The adoption of Resolution 2532(2020) on July 1, 2020, once again provides an affirmative response that global health concerns could impact international peace and security negatively. Resolution 2532(2020) was adopted after "considering that the unprecedented extent of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely [emphasis mine] to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security." The Resolution responded to the call of the UNSG and established a regime for a global ceasefire, cessation of hostilities, and support for durable humanitarian pause for at least 90 consecutive days. This pause, however, does not extend to certain groups listed and groups designated terrorist groups by the UNSC.
THE TAKEAWAY
We need to do everything possible to find peace and unity our world so desperately needs to battle COVID-19
Juxtaposing SC Resolution 2177(2014) and Resolution 2532(2020), one thing is clear, an epidemic or pandemic, such as we have seen with Ebola and COVID-19 are at the core of the question of "international peace and security," requiring continued "national, regional and international cooperation and solidarity." The interpretation of these global health challenges as interrogating the issue of "peace and security" offers a progressive understanding of the notion of "international peace and security," "threat to peace" as well as the "maintenance of international peace." As the ways in which these issues are addressed have continued to develop and vary per time.
In terms of the verbiage of both resolutions, we see that SC Resolution 2177(2014) categorically calls out Ebola outbreak as a "threat to international peace and security" [emphasis mine], while Resolution 2532(2020) states that COVID-19 "is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security" [emphasis mine]. The purport would be that per 2532(2020) COVID-19 was not declared a "threat to international peace" [emphasis mine].
But we see from the progression of Resolution 1308 (July 17 2000) that at the very least the emergence of a global health crisis of international concern such as a pandemic or an epidemic has the propensity to exacerbate any ongoing crisis, reverse the peace-building and developmental gains achieved by post-conflict and transitioning regions of the world by fanning the embers of social tensions, fear, and confusion resulting from uncertainty.
But while Resolution 2177(2014) recognized measures adopted by various agencies of the UN, the national, regional, and international agencies, and humanitarian agencies, in addressing the Ebola the Resolution 2532(2020), is silent on the yields of collaborative efforts at addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact that the pandemic has had on trade, supply chains, the economy, travel restrictions, safety protocols and preventive measure, development, and implementation of therapies.
Resolution 2177(2014) underscored the urgency required in addressing the Ebola epidemic by calling on urgent action by member states of the UN. Resolution 2532(2020), while underscoring the need to international cooperation and solidarity is bereft of the urgency embodied in Resolution 2177(2014) possibly because COVID-19 was not deemed a threat, but only possessing the capacity "to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security" [emphasis mine]
With international peace and security, the "great lockdown" that has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic has shown to the world that "international peace;" freedom from disturbance and tranquillity and the maintenance of the "peace" can be impacted by global health. At a time such as this "we need to do everything possible to find peace and unity our world so desperately needs to battle COVID-19."
The verbiage of Resolution 2177(2014) and Resolution 2532(2020) express to the world that the matter of international peace and security are progressive in nature. But overall, it is clear from the practice of the UNSG that it possesses broad discretion in answering the question: "Global Health: A Question Of International Peace And Security?
This is an edited and updated version of an earlier article titled; "Global Health: A Question Of International Peace And Security?" published on July 12, 2020.
About Piece
In this piece, while juxtaposing the content of UNSC Resolution 2177(2014) and Resolution 2532(2020), I explore the affirmative response of both resolutions that global health issues can undoubtedly threaten international peace as well as the maintenance of international peace.