By Syed S. Hussain
New York
The war in Iraq provided a breathing space for the United Nations, considering the intense diplomatic center stage it occupied leading up to the war. Now with the war over the UN is back in the focus. Previously it was expected to play a decisive role in averting the destruction of Iraq. Now it is expected to help in the reconstruction of Iraq. The UN did not succeed in preventing the former. Can it succeed in the latter task? More importantly, would it be considered relevant enough to be asked to do such a job?
The UN is known more for the criticism it receives: an inert institution, an impotent talking shop, a helpless lackey of the West, etc. It is generally perceived as an organization that has not been successful in realizing its founding objectives; providing collective security, guaranteeing the independence and integrity of member states, both large and small.
To a certain extent the charges against the United Nations are not entirely unfounded. After all the world body has not been successful in resolving most major conflicts in the world. War and hostilities have continued to take place, despite UN urgings to the contrary. In short, the UN does not have the teeth to tackle the problems (of collective security) for which it was set up.
It is also hardly conceivable that the world in general, and the big powers in particular, are yet ready to provide that kind of muscle to the UN, enabling it to settle disputes and conflicts independently. Therefore, there is an apparent contradiction of expecting too much, without providing the means to come up to those expectations. Dose this make the UN irrelevant?
The answer should be no! In the myriad of things not archived by this world body, there are many achievements that generally go unpublicized. UN-backed programs are in the forefront of the battles against poverty, ignorance, and disease all around the world. It has done a commendable job in trying to improve the human rights situation of people in many countries. And most importantly, it is better for the security of the world to have an organization, with whatever failings, than not to have one at all.
The UN may not have been able to prevent many disputes from sliding into armed conflicts, but it certainly has done a better job as a truce maker and peacekeeper. The UN peacekeeping forces have undertaken over 50 operations since the organization’s inception. Some of the peacekeeping arrangements like that of the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in the Middle East and the United Nations Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) in Kashmir have been going on for more than half a century.
Presently, the UN is involved in number of peacekeeping operations all over the world. These include peacekeeping missions in high profile conflict areas like Kosovo, East Timor, Lebanon and Cyprus. UN peacekeepers are also in African ethnic strife-ridden areas like Ethiopia and Eritrea, Congo, and Sierra Leone. There are around 37,000 personnel from over 85 countries involved in these peacekeeping operations.
The United Nations has provided another important service by way of settlement of refugees and displaced persons. As a direct consequence of numerous conflicts, as well as persecution by many governments, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of refugees and displaced persons around the world. The UN is involved in resettlement services of more than 20 million refugees around the world, and has done much to alleviate their problems.
This and many others related services are provided by the UN for creating a better and more peaceful world. Having said that, it must be stressed that the United Nations needs to adapt to the changing realties of the world, so as to provide the type of conflict management the world needs now. For long the UN has been encumbered by the diplomatic norms in dealing with an emerging crisis. It has to become more proactive in handling serious issues.
There are some serious issues that have been on its agenda for a long, long time. They need the UN’s immediate attention. Without tangible results in these areas, the negative perception of the role of the UN, in managing crises around the world, would increase. This organization was not only meant to provide humanitarian services, but also to resolve political and security problems. Many important crises need immediate and proactive attention, because unless resolved they have the potential of turning into great catastrophes.
The Palestine crisis has been bleeding for far too long. Both parties have got so intricately involved that it will take a third party to untangle them. The general belief is that only the United States could meaningfully intervene and provide a way out. This belief to a large extent is true. However, even in the Palestine issue the role of the United Nations must not be underestimated. Its active involvement would provide the much-needed perception of impartiality in the settlement, which the Palestinians would be looking for. After all the UN has passed appropriate resolutions in this regard.
The Kashmir issue is yet another potential powder keg. This is now considered as probably the most important flashpoint in the world. Both India and Pakistan have reached a stage where they could only harm themselves. India is averse to a multilateral approach to this issue, whereas Pakistan favors it. Again there are UN resolutions that are still to be complied with.
Then there is the North Korea issue, a nightmare in the making, needing urgent settlement. Fight against global terrorism, and non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destructions, are issues that are going to increasingly draw the attention of the UN. The world, as mentioned, is changing fast with new problems surfacing all the time. The United Nations has to change with this change.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq remains an unfinished task of immense proportion. The UN has to work out an arrangement with the US, to remain a major party overseeing the making of new Iraq. It cannot afford to remain a mere observer, or at the most a humanitarian relief provider. But beyond that, it has to be a party to the settlement of major issues unfolding in postwar Iraq. Any imbalance or half measures in the emerging new order would ensure its ramifications to be felt far and wide, mostly to the detriment of the United Nations.
(Syed S. Hussain is a political analyst. He has post-graduate degrees in Political Science, International Relations, History and Law. E-mail: Sharafain@aol.com)