05 September 2004	Sunday	19 Rajab 1425

THE standing of the United Nations, which began to erode after the collapse of the Soviet Union made the United States the only superpower, has plummeted in the post-9/11 period , and the events of one year ago remind us of the depths to which it has fallen, in the Muslim world in particular.

Last August, the United Nations team led by Sergio Vieira de Mello, the secretary general's special representative in Iraq, was getting nervous about the widespread perception that the UN mission was an adjunct of what had rapidly become a very unpopular US occupation. Indeed, on the morning of Aug 19, which would see 22 of my colleagues die in a vicious terrorist attack, the chiefs of communication of all the UN agencies in Baghdad had met in an emergency session to hammer out a plan to counter this perception of our role in Iraq.

Nothing we might have done in this regard would have deterred the fanatics who blew up our headquarters that fateful day, killing the widely respected Vieira de Mello and many others on his team, but the lack of a strong Iraqi, Arab and Muslim outcry against this atrocity chilled us to the bone, even as it revealed the ferocity of the anger toward the UN. That anger was based, essentially, on the perception in the Arab and Muslim world that the U.N. was unable to contain or even condemn US and Israel military excesses.

In a rare challenge to the United States, the UN Security Council had, in fact, refused to authorize the Iraq war. This, however, was quickly forgotten by Muslims when the UN effectively sanctioned the invasion after the fact with resolutions that accepted US occupation goals in Iraq.

Ever since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Muslims have considered the UN attitude toward Iraq as the epitome of the world body's profound double standards. That aggression had led the Security Council to authorize a devastating war in 1991 and to also impose its most punitive sanctions ever. UNICEF estimated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were associated with the sanctions.

The punishments the UN meted out to Iraq outraged Muslims, because the organization had for more than a quarter of a century allowed Israel to occupy and expand control of Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese land with impunity.

The new Iraq war is seen by even the most moderate Muslims as taking the double standard to a new high. While American leaders argued that the war would liberate Iraq from a dangerous dictator and remove a threat of weapons of mass destruction, Muslims saw it as a crusade by US neoconservatives to crush and occupy Islamic countries. And Muslims were even more infuriated when the Security Council, anxious not to further antagonize the world's lone superpower, subsequently legitimized a war and occupation that most of the rest of the world had clamorously opposed.

Muslims see the threats of military intervention against another Muslim regime, Sudan's, as the latest example of that double standard, pointing to how the United States and other powers stood by as a terrible genocide unfolded in Rwanda.

A year later, more than 7,000 Bosnians under UN protection were slaughtered as the major powers looked on.

The truth is much closer to the Muslim perception. It could hardly be otherwise. The United States is the world's mightiest nation, and UN member states and Secretary General Kofi Annan know that without a close relationship with the United States, the UN would be irrelevant to global security. But there's the rub: If that relationship is too close, it will even more surely doom the United Nations, whose greatest strength is a commitment to building global consensus on vital issues.

The Bush administration places relentless pressure on countries to support even the most questionable aspects of its war on terrorism, regardless of the damage that such support would pose for those countries' stability. The current drive to get a UN mission operating in Iraq again under the protection of forces from Muslim countries is a perfect example. Such a presence in Iraq would pose excruciating risks to both the UN and any countries that might comply, especially Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Washington shows no interest in addressing its deep rift with moderate Muslims, even though it surely must know that it will never be able to win the war against terrorism through a military strategy alone, without the support of this billion- strong community. Except for a tiny fringe, Muslims want no truck with terror, which has wrought such enormous suffering for them.

The United Nations is an irreplaceable institution because it struggles, however imperfectly, to reach global consensus on the most critical issues facing humanity. It is that universality that allows it to confer legitimacy on the most contentious enterprises. The terrorists who blew up the mission in Iraq dealt a severe blow to UN fortunes in the Middle East, but much more lasting damage is being done to the UN ideal by demands for it to see the world only through American eyes.

Ultimately its capital will be squandered and its resolutions rendered worthless for large chunks of humanity, particularly Muslims.

Member states and the secretary general should see this eroding legitimacy as the greatest challenge the organization faces. But they will be unable to make effective headway unless the United States itself recognizes that it needs, in its own interest, to show greater respect for the United Nations.-Dawn / LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.

- Salim Lone, who worked for the United Nations for 20 years, was director of communications for the UN mission in Iraq headed by the late Sergio Vieira de Mello. He is from Kenya.