Cold War haunts UN hopes

The following is an excerpt from a statement made by Indonesian Foreign Minister Ali Alatas at the commemorative meeting of the Security Council on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations on Sept. 26, 1995.

NEW YORK: It may be recalled that the United Nations was born while humankind was still recoiling from the horrors of World War II. The international community, determined to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," endeavored at the San Francisco Conference fifty years ago to create an international organization that would be able to prevent such calamities in the future by establishing the political, economic and social conditions for a new, more peaceful and safer world. An important part of that task -- the maintenance of international peace and security -- was entrusted to this Security Council.

The high hopes that the international community invested in the United Nations, however, were soon overcast by the shadow of the Cold War. The lofty intentions of the UN Charter could no longer be fully realized in a world split into two rival military and ideological blocs locked in a struggle for dominance.

In this Council, a sense of higher responsibility and common purpose among its members had been presupposed, but time and again the Council would be paralyzed precisely because the major powers could not achieve unanimity. As a result, the Council too often failed to take decisive action to resolve conflicts and its resolutions were frequently defied or ignored. The super- imposition of East-West rivalries on the deliberations of the Council rendered even unanimously approved resolutions unimplementable. In the process of eliciting the support of the Permanent Members, resolutions often became diluted to the point of being pious declarations or futile exhortations. The excessive use of the veto further paralyzed the Council.

But it cannot be denied that even during the Cold War era, the Security Council did manage to bring about some measure of global stability by limiting the scope and intensity of conflicts. Working with the secretary-general, the Council provided modalities for conciliation and mediation, good offices and fact- finding, true observation and quiet diplomacy. Time and again the Council would formulate guidelines for the solution of complex problems and substitute dialog and negotiations for armed hostilities. Many a cease-fire arranged by the Council paved the way to a political settlement. And if admittedly the Council could not resolve the most dangerous problems of that time, it nevertheless kept them from breaking out of control. It certainly prevented the escalation of regional conflicts into global conflagration which, considering the capacity of the major powers for mutual nuclear devastation, could well have brought humanity to the brink of extinction.

With the end of the Cold War, a new era in the search for peace has dawned. Breakthroughs have been achieved in long- standing conflicts in some countries and regions. On a number of occasions in the recent past the Permanent Members of the Security Council have recognized the international responsibilities inherent in their status and have shown a capability for united action never seen before. We are thus given a glimpse of what the Council could achieve if it could be made strictly faithful to the vision of the UN Charter. Equally heartening, cooperation between the permanent and non-permanent members has also improved.

Still, the lessons of the past 50 years are clear. We are called upon to further strengthen our institutions and to adopt more effective and innovative approaches to the prevention and resolution of conflicts. We have to recast the Charter's concept of collective action for peace and security so as to render the United Nations more capable of carrying out its primary function. We need to devise a more viable system of collective or common security in which all member states can participate in accordance with their respective capabilities. In this way, the burden of making the world better and safer for all will be equitably shared by all.

The General Assembly, the Security Council and the secretary- general should assume their respective, complementary roles in preserving the peace as mandated by the Charter. Peacekeeping operations have to be armed with a clear mandate and provided adequate means, including financial, to fulfill their missions.

Indeed, in this context it is of critical importance to come to grips with the serious financial crisis that the organization is facing, without which all our endeavors to maintain international peace and security would grind to a halt. Concepts of peacemaking, peacekeeping, peace building and preventive diplomacy need to be adapted to the new realities, especially in view of the qualitative changes that have occurred in the nature of conflicts. Questions relating to the future use of powers vested under Chapter VII of the Charter call for a collective rethinking on the basis of insights derived from recent experience.

The profound changes that have taken place during the past 50 years should now be reflected in the Security Council. An equitable and balanced expansion of the permanent and non- permanent membership of the Council, coupled with reforms in its working methods and procedures, would render the Council more responsive and relevant to prevailing geopolitical realities and more open to the participation of small and medium-sized states which constitute the majority of the organization. It would also be timely and pertinent to review the manner in which the veto is presently exercised with a view to mitigate its arbitrary use and to ensure a more democratic decision-making process.