Has the UN lost sight of its ideals?
Khalid Saleem
The Charter of the United Nations begins with the words “We, the peoples
of the United Nations”. Six decades down the road we are today left with
the contemplation of whether or not the United Nations has actually
lived up to the high ideals it was set up for. What to talk of the
United Nations several piddling outfits have taken it upon themselves
the task of the establishment of world peace that the founding fathers
had envisaged as the exclusive preserve of the United Nations
Organization. It would be of special interest to remember the era of the
Cold War when the Warsaw Pact and NATO each arrogated to itself the
powers that should best have been vested in the United Nations. Then it
came to pass that all of a sudden the Cold War came to an end.
While the Warsaw Pact died a natural death, NATO was left in the
wilderness of sorts. When some seven years ago, the European Union took
the decision to set up the EU Rapid Reaction Force, it raised several
eyebrows among the international affairs buffs. Having officiated at the
birth of NATO and being its recognized godfathers, the Americans looked
askance at this decision of the EU. The US has long held to the
assumption that they (USA, that is) should have a decisive say in
matters concerned with the defense of Europe. The end of the Cold War
was bound to have repercussions of some sort. The European Union had
been squirming for quite some time to acquire some freedom of maneuver
for itself. After some notable successes in the economic field, defense
was but the logical next step. The Americans were worried, and
justifiably so, that the decision to set up the EU Rapid Reaction Force
would pose a threat to NATO primacy in the field of collective defense.
On the other hand it was generally recognized at the time as to how long
would the European Union be content to confine its foreign policy
instruments to an America–dominated alliance. This is hardly the time to
delve into the merits or demerits of the EU decision. What did interest
one, though, was what role, if any, might have been envisaged for the
Force in international peacekeeping operations. By hindsight, such
operations have at best been a mixed blessing. In some instances they
have failed miserably to prevent the worst. In others they came into
operation so late that the world was left wondering as to their
efficacy. The NATO operations and, subsequently, the EU Rapid Reaction
Force gave rise to other question marks too. For one thing, they put the
United Nations’ role in peacekeeping into a gray area. After all,
peacekeeping was, and should be, one of the principal concerns of the
United Nations. This is not to say that the United Nations has exactly
covered itself with glory in this particular field.
The events of nine/eleven turned every known paradigm on its head. All
defense organizations, and NATO in particular, were roped in to do
America’s bidding. The United Nations provided the umbrella for the
stationing of NATO forces in Afghanistan in an operation that, by no
stretch of imagination, can be seen as a peacekeeping venture. And all
under the notional command of the United States Armed Forces. The NATO
authorities must be wondering sometime as to what made then enter into
this rather murky situation. The recent defiant act by NATO in refusing
to join the US forces in Afghanistan in their cross-border adventures
into Pakistan may or may not signify disillusionment.
As mentioned earlier, the Charter of the United Nations begins with the
words “We, the peoples of the United Nations…”. This connotes a
symbolism of sorts that should not be lost on world leaders: that it is
all “peoples”- and not just some governments – that form the bedrock of
the World Organization. Whether one looks at the peacekeeping role or
the economic logjam, one cannot help the feeling that the United
Nations, that, as the universal institution having the responsibility to
devise worldwide solutions based on equity and rules that are fair to
all, has let “the peoples” down.
While on the subject of peacekeeping, one is also tempted to venture the
remark that this process should also encompass the ‘establishment of
durable peace’. In other words, mere papering over of the cracks can
hardly do the trick. Cessation of hostilities should be viewed merely as
a first step towards the ultimate goal of am equitable and durable
settlement of the dispute. Too often, regrettably, the United Nations
has arranged for a ceasefire and then rested on its laurels. Jammu and
Kashmir issue is a case in point. In so doing, the International
Organization has helped to nurture festering flashpoints the world over.
In order to ensure a peaceful World Order, the United Nations should
also have striven to ensure a fair and equitable World Economic Regime.
Here too the world body has failed “the peoples of the United Nations”.
It needs to be counted among the failures of the United Nations that the
international economic assistance regime, instead of assuming the role
of healer of the economic ills of the poor, has been given free rein to
degenerate into a re-incarnation of the money-lending system of medieval
ages, with its built-in inequities. Rather than working towards the
general uplift of the living standard of the deprived millions of this
planet, the ‘system’ has become a millstone around their collective
necks. Instead of freeing them from economic blackmail, it has laid them
open to shameless manipulation.
One would risk the charge of over-simplification in suggesting that to
make the United Nations effective what is sorely needed is some kind of
an ‘enforcement mechanism’. Mere ‘informed debate’, in which our
multilateral diplomatists revel, or even high-sounding resolutions can
hardly deliver, unless they are backed up by a self-executing mechanism
to ensure the timely implementation of the decisions of the World Body.
The United States, as the sole superpower, is in a unique position to
guide the United Nations to fulfill its noble mission by upholding the
human and humane values that all right-thinking peoples of the world
hold dear. And let the leaders of the influential countries take a
conscious decision to use their collective weight on the side of good
and justice and not to allow their vision to be clouded by extraneous
and biased considerations. For a change, let ethics rather than
expediency be the controlling force behind the actions of the powers
that be. “The peoples of the United Nations” deserve no less.
|
