The glorious words of the UN Charter have not come to fruition basically because there are many in the US who view the UN as an impediment to the implementation of US foreign policy, and want to bring it in line with American interests

WHILE the happenings in Iraq, and indeed the runup to the attack itself, have left the world a horde of bewildered souls, the most unfortunate part of the deal has been the brazen toothlessness of the United Nations. Caught in the midst of all this turbulence is the credibility and relevance of the UN.

After all, if the United States, the most powerful member state, can defy the UN Charter with impunity, why should the smaller states bother to comply? Two global futures suggest themselves. In one, there is complete anarchy and chaos among nations as the UN falls apart. In the other, the US imposes its will on all nations, essentially rendering the UN superfluous. Neither scenario is attractive.

Seeking to allay such unattractive visions, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly a couple of months ago, urging the member nations “to seek agreement on ways of improving it, but above all, of using it as its founders intended: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, to re-establish the basic conditions for justice and the rule of law, and to promote social progress and better standards of life and larger freedom.”

At the same session, French President Jacques Chirac said the US-led invasion of Iraq had shaken the multilateral system because it was launched without the sanction of the UN Security Council. Chirac said, “In an open world, no one can live in isolation, no one can act alone in the name of all, and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules.”

Unfortunately, many in Washington have reached the opposite conclusion. They view the UN as an impediment to the implementation of US foreign policy. One of their leading lights is Richard Perle. While serving as chairman of the Defence Policy Board prior to the Iraq war, Perle stated, “What will die in Iraq is the fantasy of the United Nations as the foundation of a new world order. We are left with coalitions of the willing. Far from disparaging them as a threat to a new world order, we should recognize that they are, by default, the best hope for that order, and the true alternative to the anarchy of the abject failure of the United Nations.”

The neo-conservatives, new-cons as they are called, regard the UN as a debating society characterized by endless hand wringing and puerile discussion, dominated by illiberal and dictatorial regimes. However, such a viewpoint ignores the global proliferation of democracy.

According to Stanford University’s Larry Diamond, a “third wave” of democratization began in 1974 and gathered momentum after 1989. About two-thirds of the world’s states, or 120 nations, are now democracies. The neo-cons cannot espouse the ideas of democracy at home while ignoring it in the UN. The Iraq war was opposed equally by democratic and dictatorial regimes. In fact, the most vocal opposition came from two of Europe’s oldest democracies in France and Germany.

The neo-cons view with alarm the increasing isolation of the US in the world and are unable to see the UN as a productive channel for the exercise of US power. In the UN General Assembly, the US faces 190 other member states of the UN, each of which has one vote. In the Security Council, it holds a veto, but exercising it often erodes its moral claim to global leadership.

When the US vetoed a resolution sponsored by Pakistan and other countries that would have censured Israel for planning to “remove” Yasser Arafat, it was the one that lost face. A few days later, a similar resolution that included a condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings, but deplored Israel’s policy of carrying out “extra-judicial killings” passed in the General Assembly with an overwhelming margin: 133 votes in favour, 15 abstentions, and four opposed (the US, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands). these glorious words have not come to fruition

There are many in the US who want to bring the UN in line with US national interests. The Hoover Institution’s Michael McFaul says that the US officials must provide leadership to make the UN agenda more closely reflect US interests. He argues that if the UN and the US do part ways, both stand to lose, but the UN most of all.

This perspective arises from the simple fact that the US is a colossus astride the globe, like imperial Rome under the Caesars. Even though it is home to less than five per cent of the world’s population, the US spends more than 40 per cent of the world’s military expenditure. Its military reach spans the globe and its economy produces a quarter of the world’s output and has generated half of the world’s stock market capitalization. In a myopic view, the only possible benefit to the US of going to the UN would be to legitimize its unilateral position and reduce the cost of implementation.

This is ironic since the US helped create the League of Nations at the end of the First World War, and the UN at the end of the Second World War. It now seems eager to marginalize the UN unless it rubber-stamps decisions made in Washington. The Bush administration has no desire to feel encumbered by international law, but would happily accept the moral authority and diplomatic support that comes from resolutions of the UN Security Council.

A review of the UN’s fifty-three year history indicates that while it was founded for noble ends, it never had the authority to pursue policies to implement these ends. The bold words of the preamble to the UN charter are inscribed on the grounds of the UN Plaza in downtown San Francisco where the UN was founded in 1945: “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war ... and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained ... and for these ends to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.”

There are many reasons why these glorious words have not come to fruition. The UN has often been considered a form of world government, especially by small countries looking for a fair resolution of their disputes with big countries.

However, the UN cannot levy taxes or raise armies, which are among the hallmarks of sovereignty. In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, UN Undersecretary-General for Communications Shashi Tharoor writes that Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the charter are legally binding on all member states. However, the Hoover Institution’s McFaul counters that they only become legally binding when they have the support of a powerful state such as the US.

The UN operates by consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council and this reduces it to LCD (least common denominator) decision-making. It is no surprise that the Security Council has time and again failed to resolve the major conflicts of the post-World War II era, including the Vietnam war, the Soviet-Afghanistan war, the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East and the Kashmir conflict in South Asia. It has also failed to prevent civil wars in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America.

A unique challenge facing the UN is the fact that it is funded by member states. This is why the Security Council failed to act against the US for unilaterally moving against Iraq. It is inconceivable that any other state would have been allowed to take unilateral military action against another member state without facing a Security Council resolution condemning its acts, the possible imposition of economic and diplomatic sanctions, and being given a deadline to desist from its action or face a UN force that would stop its military action. Indeed, the Security Council undertook such action in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali notes that the real problem is that the UN cannot fault the US in any dispute because the US is its unstated boss. If it were to use diplomatic weapons against the US, the latter would retaliate by stopping paying its dues and thus marginalizing the whole UN machinery. “Unable to defend itself, the UN then becomes the scapegoat.”

If there is even the perception that a dispute will be solved easily, you will find it settled outside of the UN. He bemoans the fact that if no one is interested in solving the dispute because of the cost or other priorities, then they entrust the dispute to the UN.

It is difficult not to be pessimistic about the UN’s future. Citing the failure of its numerous peacekeeping missions during the past two decades, many suggest that the UN has never had sufficient muscle for effective peacekeeping or nation-building.

Others believe that the UN is still an invaluable global resource that should be nurtured in the interest of global peace and harmony. It helped restore decent governments in Kampuchea (Cambodia), East Timor and Bosnia. On a thousand unnoticed fronts, it daily comes to the aid of refugees, the sick, and the malnourished. And some believe, with proper reforms, it might still be a force for improving collective world security.

Among those who have an optimistic vision of the UN’s future was the late foreign minister of Sweden, Anna Lindh. Shortly before her death, she said, “Having bypassed the UN in the decision to commence this military action, it is important not to bypass the UN as a source of legitimacy for future initiatives. The UN today has a stronger role than it has had earlier [and] its relevance and activities have hardly been greater. On issue after issue, the UN has been central and active and, consequently, has also received much more criticism from those who do not like some particular course of action.”

Acknowledging that the UN is in a very serious crisis, Mokthar Lamani, the permanent representative of the Organization of Islamic Countries to the UN, notes that the “UN’s credibility is damaged, but not destroyed.” Sir John Weston, who served as the UK’s permanent representative to the UN, says that people want to go back to the UN because of a simple reason: The UN charter is the origin of the moral legitimacy of the world organization.”

Addressing the General Assembly recently, Philippines President Arroyo noted that the predicted decline of the UN “is greatly exaggerated”. Without the UN, Arroyo said, “the rich would become richer, the poor poorer .... conflicts and disharmony would erupt along political, ethnic and religious fissures .. we face the paradox of a world contracting through advancing technology that is at the same time drifting apart in the seams of inequality”.

She called for implementing reforms in the UN, so it can play a catalytic role in helping member states meet future challenges associated with collective security and international law. Her vision of the UN is that of a modern, nimble and determined agent for change that benefits mankind.

Richard Falk, a professor emeritus at Princeton University, says that even the interests of the US would be best served by adhering to the UN Charter System. From his perspective, recourse to war against Iraq should not have been undertaken without a prior mandate from the Security Council, and rather than “a failure” of the United Nations, it represented a responsible exercise of constitutional restraint.

The facts did not support the case for preemption, as there was neither imminence nor necessity. As a result, the Iraq War seemed, at best, to qualify as an instance of preventive war, but there are strong legal, moral, and political reasons to deny both legality and legitimacy to such a use of force.

Boutros-Ghali’s vision for the UN’s future is quite radical. He forecasts that the UN will have to give way to a third generation of international organizations, just as the second generation UN succeeded the first-generation League of Nations. He says, “The third generation will not come about by changing the composition of the Security Council, or revolutionizing the operation of the General Assembly, or reinforcing the Economic and Social Council. The third generation must be the result of a drastic change in the overall concept. It is quite possible that non-governmental organizations, cities and other non-state actors will need to be integrated into the third generation organization.”

Richard Falk asserts that the UN will almost certainly be marginalized in the future with respect to the resolution of major geopolitical issues, given the power dominance of the US. He argues that the UN may choose to enhance its contributions by providing an enlarged space for discussions related to human rights, environmental protection, and global justice issues.

But recent events indicate that there is room for optimism even on the geopolitical front. When President Bush spoke at the UN in September, he was anxious to enlist the support of the UN in restoring law and order in Iraq. He reminded the audience that the US was an original signer of the UN Charter and was committed to supporting the UN. Bush said that the founding documents of both the UN and the US stood in the same tradition, and called on the UN to assist in “developing a constitution, training civil servants, and conducting free and fair elections”.

This was a far cry from his speech in the same body a year ago, when he had thrown the gauntlet by asking: “Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?” It is clear that US went to the Security Council out of necessity. Even though it is the world’s undisputed superpower, it still has to reckon with the force of world public opinion. With a more conciliatory approach now evident in the UN Security Council, the US seems to have come to a belated recognition that it needs the UN every bit as much as the UN needs it. That bodes well for both. And, of course, for the world at large.