|
New Page 10
The U.N. and today�s realities
TONY OKERAFOR
SOMEONE has
said that mankind would not have plunged into the Second World War if the United
Nations, U.N., had been in existence. The League of Nations which had preceded
it � according to this opinion � was at best a rag-tag organisation with hardly
any sense of direction, let alone teeth to bite.
Someone else has attempted to take this
argument one step further. The U.N., he has said, is to be credited with having
successfully stood between the human race and a third world war. Generally
speaking, that assertion may not be faulted in all its totality. This writer is
of the opinion that this same loosely - connected organisation, the U.N. by
name, has been the one force that has prevented us from wiping the human race of
the face of this earth.
In any case, this discussion was not meant
to tilt towards that direction. Instead, we shall be analysing specifics and we
shall be focusing on two hardly disputable realities about the workings, the
status and the history of this unique umbrella world body. First, we shall
remember one of the most memorable remarks of Dag Harmashold - that second,
great scribe of the U.N. He was to make a sudden and painful exit from the scene
but, sometime during his reign, he was to set the record straight about what he
saw as the role of the U.N. "The United Nations," he explained, "was not
invented to take mankind to heaven, but rather, to save humanity from hell.
What on earth could he have meant by that?
One may ask. In an attempt to address this question, we might as well allude to
this assertion making the rounds in many circles. The U.N., and specifically its
engine - house, the Security Council, is still reflective of the realities of
1945 and not the realities of 2004. How is that? One may also ask.
At the time Mr. Harmashol was U.N.
secretary-general, the "Iron curtain" which had symbolized the division of
Europe into West and East was also to hold out ideological differences across
the rest of the globe. These ideological divisions, orchestrated by the U.S and
the defunct Soviet Union proved strong enough to prevent the United Nations from
fulfilling the role which, according to the great man himself, was to "save
humanity from hell" on earth. The world into which the U.N. was born in 1945 was
a thoroughly uncertain world. Mankind had just emerged from an exhausting
conflict in Europe and the Asia pacific, with nearly 70 million fatalities
recorded, in addition to a massive decimation of land, industry, water and
financial resources.
Four great powers were also to emerge from
the ruins of 1945; namely, America, the former U.S.S.R., Britain and France.
With them came the era of the devastating, new weapon known as nuclear power.
Effectively, these new world powers, with their nuclear arsenals getting ever
more lethal, succeeded in splitting the rest of us along ideological lines.
Conquered lands, such as Germany, Japan, the Koreas, as well as large chunks of
western and eastern Europe, were effectively "carved out" and shared up by the
likes of the U.S and the U.S.S.R. Added to that, regional and intra - national
conflicts began to erupt in separate parts of the world. Such was the mess that
the U.N. had walked into at birth and throughout its prime, and still does.
To have been able to tackle those problems
head - on would have been an impossible task. To have been able to scale such
hurdles would have amounted to the U.N. taking us all to heaven.
At best, the U.N. could and did try to
stop our world from plunging into a nuclear conflict. For instance, it had half
- heartedly gone into the Korean Penisular in the 1950�s - undermined the spread
of communism in the area which, at the end of the day, could have resulted in a
nuclear confrontation between the two super-powers at the time, including China.
Several years down the line, the U.N. was
called upon to intervene, both politically and militarily, in the likes of
Lebanon, Indian subcontinent, Cambodia, Congo, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone,
Ethiopia - Eritrea, Somalia, Afghanistan, East Timor, Liberia, Ivory Coast.
The list is endless. Yet, the truth must
be told that the United Nations has made a difference in these countries,
despite the mounting criticisms that are coming its way in the fast - changing
world such as we have today.
Maybe, it�s because of the organisation�s
failure to get the U.S. and its war allies to listen to it over Iraq that many
people around the world seem to think that the world body could never do better.
The U.N., unfortunately, is still struggling to find a proper role for itself in
Iraq, after its offices and personnel were bombed out by insurgents in August,
last year.
The position of this writer is that the
United Nations, with all the institutional constraints that it has had to live
with since its inception nearly six decades ago, is getting far more than its
fair share of criticism, and is not receiving enough credit for its
achievements. To say that the U.N. is no more than a talking - shop or a
toothless bulldog is a reflection of insensitivity or outright ignorance of how
the ageing umbrella body has been designed from the start. Anyone who complains
that the U.N. appears to dance to the tune of permanent members of the Security
Council, such as the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China, may not be far at
all from the truth. In truth, the Security Council, also including some 10
non-permanent members, is the reason why the U.N. hasn�t disintegrated like the
old League of Nations. And again, not only does each of the five permanent
member - nations on the Security Council have the power to wield the veto over
decisions being reached by the body, but also, they are the ones whose votes
must matter whenever the U.N. is called upon to make peace or to intervene
militarily in any crisis. More often than not, the "national interests" of these
countries informs what they do or say in any crisis situation, as a result of
which the credibility of the umbrella world body suffers.
But, where do you place Sudan�s case,
which has nearly every permanent member of the council being prepared to support
the imposition of punitive sanctions on the mainly Arab government in Khartoum
for supporting and arming the pro-government janjawid militia, who have caused
tens of thousands of black Africans to die and forced out another 1.2 million
others as refugees? The writer is talking about what the U.N. has called the
world�s worst humanitarian disaster in the Darfur region of western Sudan.
The question is in whose own national
interest is it to end the blood shed in Darfur? Is it that of the people of
Sudan and Africa or directly that of any member of the permanent five? The
answer cannot be in doubt.
Already we have seen one reason why, according to some
people the fifteen-member council is seen as reflecting the realities of 1945
and not 2004. Far from subscribing to that argument, this writer is of the
opinion that in more aspects than one, the U.N. is not in tune with modern -day
realities. At one time in the recent past, the Clinton administration in the
U.S., whose government wields more influence over the U.N. than any other,
started to talk about expanding the permanent membership of the all - powerful
Security Council to include a representative each from the continents. Soon that
idea petered out, apparently because the "big powers" couldn�t stomach a
proposal that had emerged from within their own ranks. Hence, the need for
someone to help provide answers or solutions to some hanging issues.
|
