|
|
|
STOP OR I'LL SAY STOP AGAIN!
The Dangers Inherent in the Increasing Irrelevancy of the United Nations
The developing crisis over Iraq has fractured the United Nations in ways it has never experienced. Formerly close allies are becoming bitter enemies in the argument over the proper handling of this dispute. Vituperation and vilification are commonplace for the first time since the bad old days of the Cold War. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the UN is out of its element when handling this type of problem.
In the halls of the United States Congress charges and counter-charges, accusations and rationalizations are flying. The schism between the Republican and Democratic parties is quickly becoming a bottomless trench. Not since Vietnam have the terms "hawk" and "dove" been bantered about so readily. As the crisis drags on and there seems to be little if any movement on the part of the United Nations, pressure is increasingly being brought to bear on the Bush Administration to act one way or the other. It is becoming evident that the US and the UN are often operating at crossed purposes.
The UN was designed to handle international crises a certain way, but in order for that way to be effective all nations involved had to agree at the outset to abide by the UN's mandate and act accordingly. This is admitted outright in the UN charter.
"All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter." (Article 2(2))
This assumption that all member nations will cooperate in full with UN mandates is naive, to say the least. In a perfect world, all nations would work in concert and the UN would be redundant. In our imperfect world, the UN is really little more than an audience chamber for diplomatic posturing. "World opinion", that nebulous monstrosity diplomats use to bludgeon each other with at the UN, is subject to economics, partisan politics, and even religious fundamentalism. This compromises the effectiveness of the UN mandates that are supposed to enforce the peace. The UN gets bogged down in the mire of diplomatic double-speak and nothing other than bluster is the result. There have been over a thousand resolutions passed by the UN Security Council. None have been effective. This is, in a large part, due to the overall nature of the UN.
When it was formed in 1945, its stated purpose reflected a war-weary world looking for a better way of settling its differences:
"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..." (Article 1(1))
The key word in the charter is "peace", and one of its key principles is that:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (Article 2(4))
>From the beginning, the United Nations has maintained that its preferred manner of handling "unpleasantness" is through peaceful, diplomatic channels.
"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice." (Article 33(1))
"The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." (Article 41)
That being said, it still recognizes the necessity of stronger action in the face of intransigence.
"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations." (Article 42)
But it is not the Security Council that controls the actual implementation of armed force in the name of the UN. Even the UN realizes that the General Assembly could never come to agreement over how to prosecute armed conflict. For that, the charter provides for a "Military Staff Committee" which consists of the Chiefs of Staff of the permanent members of the Security Council (China, Russia, the US, Britain, and France) or their representatives (Article 47(2)). In this way, the UN provides for a multinational peacekeeping force whose intentions theoretically cannot be controlled by a single power.
The UN is the product of good intentions. From its original membership of 50 nations, it has expanded to include nearly every nation on Earth. However, even should it reach its goal of full membership, the UN will never fully attain its stated purpose, for there will always be renegades and megalomaniacs to challenge it.
If that weren't enough, the UN itself creates problems. The most classic example of this also happens to concern today's crisis: the creation of the state of Israel and its wars with neighboring Arab nations. It was actually the UN that mandated the separation of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, initiating the ongoing conflict in the Middle East (Resolution 181, "The Partition Plan", November 29, 1947). As the British left, the Arab armies moved in. The leader of the Arab League, Secretary-General Azzam Pasha stated: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
More recently, Palestinian factions have been pursuing Resolution 194 (November 12, 1948) paragraph 11, which states:
"...refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible; ...the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations..."
The implementation of this Resolution has caused nearly as much confusion and resentment as the Partition Plan. Palestinian leaders cannot decide whether they want repatriation into the ancient state of Palestine, into the current nation of Israel, or compensation for the loss of their property to the tune of billions of dollars. As a result, the conflicts continue unabated. Lives are lost daily.
And the UN is literally helpless to act.
In his address to the United Nations General Assembly on September 20, 1963, President John F. Kennedy said "the United States, as a major nuclear power, [has] a special responsibility in the world. It is, in fact, a threefold responsibility--a responsibility to our own citizens; a responsibility to the people of the whole world who are affected by our decisions; and to the next generation of humanity."
As the only remaining superpower, the United States has the clear responsibility to see to it that all nations participate in the United Nations' ideal. The US is the only nation that has a history of not taking advantage of defeated enemies (within the last century, anyway), of actually propagating democratic self-government in weakened nations, and of defending minor nations from incursions by influences that would deny their people the ability to exercise free and open elections for that self-government.
Critics maintain that the US is into exercising its military authority for its own economic interests. What's wrong with that? The US interests in the Middle East have led to increased humanitarian aid, including sending billions of dollars even to the countries that today vilify US presence in the region. US presence has stabilized the volatile nature of the Arab/Israeli conflict (initiated, remember, by the UN). US presence is the cork in the bottle, and should it be removed the genie of war would surely break out immediately. The Arab nations recognize this. That is why they are so adamant that the US get out of Israel and the Middle East. In spite of everything, they fear US reprisal for invasion of Israel.
Israel has no better friend than the US. Not even Britain can claim to be as kind. The US has always stood up for Israel in the UN, bucking the trend. The UN's record toward Israel, a nation they created, is abominable. Between 1947 and 1989, the Security Council passed 175 resolutions. Of those, 111 dealt with the Arab/Israeli conflict. 97 were against Israel.
According to Christian Action for Israel, quoting a study done by Shai Ben-Tokoa at the behest of the office of the Israeli Prime Minister in 1991:
"Since the [Security] Council first convened in 1946, at least one Arab state sat on it in 39 of the body's first 43 years. Israel never sat on the Council. From December 1947, when the "Palestine Question" first appeared on its agenda, to 1989, the Council held 2,682 meetings of which 747 (26%) were devoted to the Arab-Israeli conflict. During this period, the Council passed 605 resolutions of which 175 (29%) concerned this conflict... Of these 175, 74 (42%) may be labeled neutral or balanced. Of the remaining 101, 4 (4%) criticized or opposed the actions, or judged against, the perceived interests of an Arab state or body. Ninety-seven resolutions (96%) were critical, or opposed the actions, or judged against the perceived interests of Israel. The last time a resolution passed the Security Council whose major thrust criticized Arab actions was on September 1, 1949."
In 1975, under pressure from Arab nations, the UN General Assembly issued Resolution 3379, which stated "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". The outcry at this unbelievable resolution eventually led, in December 1991, to Resolution 4686, one of the shortest in UN history. In less that 20 words, it declared that the General Assembly "decides to revoke the determination of Resolution 3379".
It seems inconceivable that an organization supposedly designed to prevent conflict and promote international cooperation and peace could act so stupidly. The more involved with regional politics and ideologies the UN becomes, the more irrelevant its role in respect to its own charter.
The United Nations must recognize "the sovereign equality of all its Members" (Article 2(1)), but this must not preclude the UN from using its power to rise above national interests and deal with the more important issues of international peace and cooperation. If there is a threat to that peace, the UN's duty is clear: use any and all means to promptly eliminate the threat. And it should be recognized that negotiations and conciliation that extend a threat by 12 years is not "prompt".
Critics of the Bush administration maintain that the inspectors are not being given enough time to do their job. These same critics are promoting the idea that the inspectors' duty is to ferret out and destroy the weapons Saddam Hussein's government has developed. Such assertions are, at best, disingenuous and at worst dishonest. It is the responsibility of Iraq, as a member nation of the UN, to comply with the UN resolutions. This duty is spelled out specifically in the UN charter as well:
"The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter." (Article 25)
The wording of the charter does not give Iraq, or any member nation, the right to ignore or dissect UN resolutions for their own ends. This is the reason the US and NATO bombing of Kosovo was criticized by the UN. It was a unilateral action taken without UN sanction and authority. Such action is against the charter.
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." (Article 2(4))
The United States ignores the UN charter at peril of forcing the UN to become irrelevant. It is imperative the US not bypass or override the UN authority by acting unilaterally against perceived threats. Every effort needs to be made to work through the UN to prevent its becoming ineffective in dealing with international problems. The Bush Administration has, for the last two years, been involved in doing just this. The world needs a disinterested arbiter of international disputes, but the UN needs to re-examine its own operations and decisions before it can claim to be such an arbiter.
Many pundits have equated Hussein to Hitler and the current situation to the years before World War II, but the situation actually is most similar to the showdown between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. We can no longer ignore the nuclear component in international disputes. If rogue states, Muslim or not, gain nuclear capability, the international community will face threats it has never faced before. It will have to rethink its handling of such threats. It will require a more realistic way of looking at the world.
If the UN cannot free itself from international intrigues and follow the charter; if it cannot enforce effectively its own resolutions; if its resolutions are to be defined by nationalism and economic pressures instead of the needs of the international community at large, it will become irrelevant in the handling of world problems. It will go the way of the League of Nations and become just another failed project that meant well but couldn't find its way clear of the corrupting influences of world politics. Worse yet, it will become the tool by which governments and organizations whose main goal is the destruction of representative governments can implement and maintain their control over a growing percentage of the world's populace.
For further reading:
The UN Charter: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/Cuban Missile Crisis debate:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1962-cuba-un1.html
http://www.un.int/india/ind119.htm (Speech to UN)
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/breach.html (history of UN and Israel)
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/record.html (UN record vs. Israel 1947-1989)
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/ihr/display_details.cfm?ID=221&document_type=commentary (on NATO bombing of Kosovo)
Visit http://ThranKeep.com for the latest in science-fiction, fantasy, and horror from four Midsouth authors.
Visit David Blalock's web site at…