Peace Prize boosts UN pride

J.T. Nguyen, Deutsche Press Agentur, New York

The Nobel Peace Prize awarded Friday to an organization once dismissed as bloated and corrupt has given the United Nations more legitimacy on the world stage at a time when the world is confronting a new challenge of terrorism.

At the same time, however, the world body is also finding itself often in disagreement with how the United States is conducting its war against terrorism.

Beaming moments after hearing he had won the Peace Prize, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said it was a challenge for the United Nations to do "more and better" because it is an "important organization in this interdependent world where we have to work together".

But the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that hit New York and Washington hung over the event and never escaped Annan's attention even while his staff celebrated winning the coveted prize. Annan called the attack a "shot in the arm" for a UN growing more determined in carrying out its peacekeeping, lawmaking and humanitarian role in the world.

Annan said the UN could have "an important role" to play in Afghanistan because it is the only organization that can do nation-building work in "rogue" states.

U.S. President George W. Bush said during a press conference Thursday evening that the military campaign led by Washington and London might be followed by a UN operation to help Afghans rebuild their nation.

But Annan called Washington's coalition "narrow" and advocated a broader coalition involving all UN members in the fight against terrorism. A UN coalition could draft laws that could be more effective at combating terrorism than military action, he said, adding that the effort should be based on UN resolutions.

Annan's position has also been advocated by a vast majority of developing countries that have called for a UN -- rather than U.S. -- led war on terrorism.

After last month's unprecedented terrorist attacks, the UN Security Council and the General Assembly quickly adopted resolutions condemning the attacks and rallied behind Washington.

In the 15-nation council, where there is often tense disagreement between permanent members on a host of issues, Russia and China signed onto the resolution condemning the attacks within an hour of its introduction the day after the attacks.

On Sept. 28, the council unanimously approved U.S.-submitted Resolution 1373, which contains comprehensive measures to fight terrorists and their organizations. That includes denying funding, training and harboring of terrorists, and the freezing of their assets. It allows states to take action against terrorists under the UN Charter's self-defense provisions.

"Suddenly the UN appears useful," said a Western diplomat in the council whose country has often been at odds with Washington on many issues.

For Russia and China, the chance to join the U.S. coalition was an opportunity to rebuff human rights accusations in past years against the two countries. Russia has been criticized for its military onslaught against Chechnya, and China for crackdowns on ethnic and religious groups.

For China, supporting the U.S. coalition could give it more leverage in dealing with unrest in its western provinces, where 16 million Moslems live.

Diplomats at the UN, expressing their views privately on the U.S. coalition, said the organization is entirely behind the fight against terrorism and has helped make it "relevant". But they warned that Washington might tolerate some countries that violate human rights joining the coalition because U.S. leaders need as much support as possible in its effort to weed out terrorists.

The diplomats cited Washington turning a blind eye to the Security Council's lifting of sanctions against Sudan in late September and not opposing Syria's election to the same body in October. The State Department considers both countries to be sponsors of terrorism.

For five days beginning Oct. 1, the 189-nation assembly held a lengthy debate on terrorism and continues to struggle with coming up with a definition of terrorism.

For example, Libya's ambassador, Abuzed Omar Dorda, argued that his country was the victim of terrorist acts and cited bombings of Tripoli in 1984 and Benghazi in 1993 by the United States. At the same time, Dorda condemned the Sept. 11 attacks against New York and Washington.