The UN's role
Yesterday, the United Nations commemorated the 50th anniversary of the signing of its Charter by representatives of the 50 nations which fought World War II on the side of the Allies.
For many countries which are still pinning their hopes on the UN for peaceful solutions to many of the world's crises, June 26 is remembered as an auspicious day. Unfortunately, however, the rest of the world sees the international body in a rather different light.
There is no doubt that the founding nations had noble purposes in mind when they established this international body. The United Nations was to maintain peace among nations and security in the world. It was to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It was to be the center for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these common ends.
Since the UN Charter came into effect on Oct. 25, 1945 -- after it was ratified by the five permanent members of the Security Council and a majority of other signatories -- there have been many success stories.
And shifts occurred on the world's political scene that had an impact on the world body. For example, developments forced the Republic of China, which had lost the country's mainland to the communists, to yield its Security Council seat to the People's Republic of China.
It is unfortunate that in the last couple of decades in particular, the UN's course has been marked by indecisiveness and impotence in too many cases.
The most significant step taken by the UN during the initial period of its existence was to punish North Korea for its aggression against South Korea in a campaign under the leadership of the United States.
This was considered a necessary and effective move by the western countries, which dominated the international body, because they existed under the shadow of the prospect of expanding communist influence in Asia and Eastern Europe at that time.
The same motive on the part of the western countries, although under different circumstances, caused them to jump into a theater of conflict in 1991, when the world body gave the green light to the United States and its allies to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
In contrast, some other international events, could lead one to believe that the UN is no longer a place where international problems or local wars can be resolved. Many world crises have been resolved outside of the world body. The UN encountered a great failure when its peacekeepers were humiliated in Somalia. And it did nothing to stop the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the genocide in Rwanda.
Also, the world saw the Palestinian crisis partly resolved outside the world body, despite the fact that Israel had violated so many UN decisions. The Cambodian crisis was likewise resolved outside -- by Southeast Asian nations, with the support of France.
And the Afghans are still killing each other in the full view of the world body.
But no humiliation suffered by the UN is more devastating than that faced in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where it has shown itself completely impotent in countering the Serbian warlords.
It is not hard to see that the UN, under the strong domination of western powers, continues to resort to the old way of thinking, demonstrated so clearly in the Korean and Gulf wars. There clearly will never be any serious effort on the part of the West as long as no western interest is involved.
The world is likely to see more sad UN stories as long as the other nations of the world are not involved in the world body's efforts to resolve international crises. The nurturing of friendly relations among nations, which the Charter stipulates, remains a hollow slogan.