| |
UN relevance faces historic
test
By Phar Kim Beng
HONG
KONG - Two years ago, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded
to the United Nations and its secretary general, Kofi
Annan. It was the third time the UN had been so
recognized since its inception five decades ago. The
first award was given to Ralph Bunche, the then UN
ambassador who played a key role in ending the 1950
Arab-Israeli Conflict. The second was awarded to the UN
peacekeeping force, the so-called "Blue Helmets", in
1988.
That was then. This week, as the United
Nations faces the Iraq crisis and the specter of two of
its most important member nations - the United States
and the United Kingdom - going to war without UN
backing, questions are being raised as to whether the
world body has any relevance. Even if the US/UK
coalition does manage to push through a resolution
authorizing war against Iraq, critics are standing by to
charge that the UN is a mere puppet of the superpowers.
But it is not the first time such questions have
been raised, and it is now worth revisiting the United
Nations to remind ourselves what it really is about.
After the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001, US President George W Bush, in an attempt to
strengthen his hands at the Security Council, took to
reassuring Annan that the UN would receive its dues from
the United States. To be sure, the amount was huge. By
November 2001, all members owed the UN a total of
US$2.242 billion, of which the United States alone had
an outstanding arrears of $1.07 billion - 44 percent in
total and 75 percent of the regular budget.
By
late 2002, the Bush administration had (partly) made
good on its promise. The US paid up to $255 million or
about 90 percent of the assessment of the year, followed
by the first sum of $300 million for its previous
arrears. Now flush with funds, it would be easy to
assume that the UN can execute its responsibilities more
effectively. But the fact is the UN has never been more
troubled in its entire history.
With Annan
unable to stop the impending war in Iraq, the United
Nations has appeared ineffective and hapless. Moreover,
the UN has also been seen as an institution given to
much back-room maneuvering by the five veto-wielding
permanent members in the Security Council, often to the
exclusion of the 10 other elected members.
Although Bush has insisted that disarming Iraq
will save the UN once and for all - this in view of the
UN's inability to check the repeated Iraqi violations of
the UN resolutions - the same disciplinary censure has
not been imposed on Israel, another serial offender.
Israel has flouted 29 Security Council resolutions in
all, whereas Iraq has had 16 contraventions.
Given this double standard at the Security
Council, some cynics have averred that the UN has
already been captured by the US; obviously a serious
accusation against an institution that is supposed to
cater to the international community.
Some have
gone so far to state that the UN is beyond redemption.
The charge? Aside from the US, the international
organization is now functioning as the legal stamp of
the permanent members to legitimize their foreign-policy
objectives.
Such a verdict, while
understandable, is nevertheless too harsh on the UN's
entire machinery. It ignores the efforts and
contributions of the UN's other agencies beyond the
Security Council.
Up to 90 percent of the tasks
the UN performs are not directly under the traditional
purview of managing and containing organized violence
(ie, wars or inter-ethnic conflicts). Rather, foremost
among them are efforts to deal with such prosaic issues
as refugee displacement, public epidemics and adequate
educational access for the developing world. Hence,
while the impending conflict in Iraq is showing the
impotent side of the UN, there are other aspects of the
international organization that have remained intact.
Be that as it may, while the UN has continued to
perform worthily, it is also crucial to keep in mind the
fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations. That
body, for example, functioned well into the end of World
War II, although its demise had begun as early as 1931
when Japan invaded China. China was in the middle of a
civil war and was not able to defend Manchuria. The
League of Nations hardly took any punitive measures
against Japan, an emerging great power, for the
incident.
In 1935, Abyssinia was one of the few
countries in Africa not under the control of a European
power. It had defeated a previous attempt by Italy to
invade it in 1896. In 1935 a well-equipped Italian force
invaded Abyssinia again, this time successfully. And
once again, the League of Nations did not take a
collective stance.
Because of these twin
omissions, the fate of the League of Nations was sealed,
as Nazi Germany, together with other Axis powers, came
around to launch World War II.
It is popular
wisdom to compare the demise of the League of Nations to
what is happening to the United Nations today, but in
fact the comparison is a crude one. A similar collapse
of the UN is by no means inevitable, as it and the
League were created under very different circumstances.
Be that as it may, what the history of the
League of Nations does reveal is that the organization's
lifespan eventually ended despite the successful
handling of many vexing problems. Some, such as the
1920-21 dispute between Sweden and Finland over the
Aland Islands, and the invasion of Albania by
Yugoslavia, were well handled by the League of Nations,
much as the present UN can claim success in its handling
of various post-Cold War conflicts.
In less
spectacular, non-political questions, the League of
Nations also had considerable influence, such as in its
fight against drug and slave trafficking, repatriation
of prisoners of war, and the operation of the
International Labor Office. The League of Nations also
made some important studies of technical, international,
social, and economic problems. The preservation of these
non-political and humanitarian activities were
undertaken by a US committee formed in the summer of
1940.
Nevertheless, while the UN has made
important strides in some humanitarian areas, a good
track record alone does not ensure continued survival,
as the history of its predecessor attests. If anything,
it is crucial to remember that the UN is an
international organization that is around to serve the
interest of all, not just a narrow band of permanent
members.
The League of Nations failed because of
the manipulation and territorial designs of Japan and
Italy. If the UN is wont to allow the US or any power to
seize control of its process, it too will lose its
credibility in due course.
(©2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
