Seyed Ali Mahmoudi
Abstract
The subject of this article is about the decision of Ban Ki-Moon, the former secretary general of the United Nations in relation to the threat of Saudi Arabia to stop all its financial support to the United Nations, if the secretary general does not remove Saudi-led Coalition from the annex I of his ...
Read More
The subject of this article is about the decision of Ban Ki-Moon, the former secretary general of the United Nations in relation to the threat of Saudi Arabia to stop all its financial support to the United Nations, if the secretary general does not remove Saudi-led Coalition from the annex I of his annual report (2016) to Security Council. In his report, the secretary general explained the fact of killing and disabling children, and military attacks to schools and hospitals in Yemen by coalition. My attempt is to evaluate the decision of the secretary general on this issue by using conceptual analysis and critical evaluation as a methodology, regarding a dilemma of the moral interference on the basis of deontological ethics. In fact the secretary general confronted a dilemma concerning two options in this regard: first removing coalition from the report and preventing Saudis to stop their support to the United Nations; second, avoidance of removing coalition and confronting execution of the threat of this country. He chose the first option. Based upon deontological ethics, in my view, assessment of the decision of secretary general indicates that although he has committed immoral deed by removing the name of coalition from the report, nevertheless through preventing Saudi Arabia from executing its threat, his decision is in conformity with deontological ethics. Conversely, measures taken by Saudi Arabia and other member states of coalition using pressure and threat against the United Nations indicate immoral behavior, in addition to their individualist acts and disintegration of these countries regarding their international obligations as the members of the United Nations.
