Whither the UN?
The United Nations Security Council is currently conducting a sort of talkfest on the ongoing war in Iraq. At the urging of the block of nonaligned nations, which has a membership of more than 100 countries or more than 50 percent of all the member countries of the UN, which numbers 191, this emergency session of the UN Security Council has been convened, offering the chance to countries that are not members of the Security Council to express their views on the subject.
Although from a psychological point of view this kind of agenda could be useful for airing frustrations over the unilateral action taken by two of the permanent members of the Security Council, the United States and the United Kingdom, this current session will be unable to change what is already happening in Iraq.
Nevertheless, this emergency session will strengthen world public opinion, which right now is unfavorable to the three governments -- Australia included -- that are actively taking part in the war in Iraq. The UN, after all, is still the only international institution in which less powerful countries can at least feel that they can have a say. Through this world body, even insignificant countries can get a sense of participation in the course of world politics.
As the Indonesian representative, Slamet Hidayat, stated in his speech to the council: "... the U.S. invasion without specific approval from the Security Council, is undermining the multilateralism principle upon which the UN was built ..." In other words, the unilateral action launched by Washington and London has severely weakened a global institution that has grown and developed over the span of more than half a century.
Does this mean, however, that the UN has by now become an insignificant institution because of its failure to manage a serious international conflict and push through a peaceful solution? Of course, U.S. President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and their associates have stated many times that over the past 12 years the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, has ignored a number of UN resolutions that require him to destroy the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq is believed to possess.
Furthermore, the Security Council's reluctance to pass a follow-up resolution to Resolution 1441 that was unanimously adopted in November is widely seen as evidence that the UN Security Council is no longer effective.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that member states, even those that are not economically and militarily powerful, cannot simply be dictated to by the world's sole superpower -- the U.S. It might be that the UN has suffered a serious setback because its most powerful member has chosen to bypass it by acting unilaterally. That, however, does not necessarily mean that the world body is facing its final days.
As a Pakistani writer, Javed Jabbar, said in an article published by The Dawn in Karachi that was reprinted in our opinion pages recently, "... the forum (UN) remains the only place where the whole community of nations can meet as ostensible equals in the General Assembly..."
Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently realized that one cannot simply ignore the UN because however strong a country may be, it cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world. Blair, in his recent talks with President Bush, apparently was trying to find a role for the UN to play in a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. This can of course be tricky, because the impression must be avoided that the UN is made to serve to justify the United States' unilateral act in Iraq. That would be ironic and it would not help the world body's prestige.
What we are going to witness in the coming years, then, is a gradual reappreciation of the global role of the UN in its difficult effort to maintain a fragile peace in the world and alleviate the suffering of millions of people across the globe.
Even in the U.S., one may expect a rising awareness that the world cannot be coerced into accepting a black and white view of events, despite the trauma of Sept. 11. Furthermore, Americans should come to realize that unilateralism, through the application of the preemptive action doctrine, is not beneficial to their national interests in today's complex world.
We believe that the UN's efficacy will then be restored and the judgement of the neo-conservative policy group, the American Enterprise Institute, that the U.S. does not need the UN anymore, will prove to be unfounded.