Rumours of UN death exaggerated

10.03.2003
BY SHASHI THAROOR

A few days ago, an interviewer rather glibly asked me: "So how
does the UN feel about being seen as the 'i' word, irrelevant?"

He was about to go on when I interrupted him. "As far as we're
concerned," I said, "the 'i' word is 'indispensable'."

Those of us who toil every day at the headquarters of the United
Nations have become a little exasperated at seeing our institutional
obituaries in the press.

The present contretemps over Iraq has led some to evoke
comparisons with the League of Nations, a body created with great
hopes at the end of the First World War, which was reduced to
debating the standardisation of European railway gauges the day
the Germans marched into Poland.

Some have suggested that the UN's irrelevance is beyond dispute,
and that all that remains is the mode of its demonstration - whether
we confirm our irrelevance by obliging the United States or ensure
our irrelevance by failing to oblige the US.

Such concerns are grossly overstated. First, reducing the Iraq
issue to a question of whether the world organisation is obliging the
US or not overlooks the key message of President George Bush's
appearance before the UN General Assembly in September last
year.

In calling on the Security Council to take action against Iraq, he
framed the problem not as one of unilateral US wishes but as an
issue of the implementation of United Nations Security Council
resolutions. The UN and the earlier decisions of its Security
Council remain at the heart of it.

Second, the League of Nations analogy does not apply. By the late
30s, two of the three most powerful countries in the world at the
time, the United States and Germany (the third being Great
Britain), did not belong to the league, which therefore had no
influence on their actions. The league died because it had become
irrelevant to the global geopolitics of the era.

By contrast, every country belongs to the UN, including the world's
only superpower, the United States. The United Nations is now
seen as so essential to the future of the world that Switzerland,
long a holdout because of its fierce neutrality, decided by
referendum last year to join.

No club that attracts every eligible member can easily be described
as irrelevant.

Third, the authorisation (or not) of war in Iraq is not the only gauge
of the Security Council's relevance.

Just four years ago, the Nato alliance bombed Yugoslavia over its
Government's conduct in Kosovo, without even reference to the
Security Council. Kosovo, it was said, had demonstrated the UN's
irrelevance.

But the issue of Kosovo returned to the Security Council, not just
when an attempt to condemn that bombing failed, but when
arrangements had to be found to administer Kosovo after the war.

Only the Security Council could approve those arrangements in a
way that conferred international legitimacy upon them and
encouraged all nations to extend support and resources to the
enterprise.

And only one body could be entrusted with the responsibility to run
the civilian administration of Kosovo - the United Nations.

I am not suggesting the UN will be offered, or would wish to take
on, such a task in a post-war Iraq. But it is important to remember
that this would not be the first time it had been written off during a
war, only to be found essential to the ensuing peace.

In penning the premature epitaphs for the UN, let us not forget the
soaring aspirations the framers of the UN charter set themselves
as they created the world body from the ashes of the Second
World War.

The relevance of the United Nations does not stand or fall on its
conduct on one issue. No doubt what happens in the Security
Council on Iraq is of vital importance to the UN's role in maintaining
international peace and security.

But when this crisis has passed, the world will still be facing (to
use Secretary-General Kofi Annan's phrase) innumerable
"problems without passports" - problems of the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, of the degradation of our common
environment, of contagious disease and starvation, of human rights
and human wrongs, of mass illiteracy and massive displacement.

These are problems that no one country, however powerful, can
solve on its own, and which are yet our shared responsibility.

They cry out for solutions that, like the problems themselves, also
cross frontiers. The United Nations exists to find these solutions
through the common endeavour of all states. It is the one
indispensable global organisation in our globalising world.

And it is not perfect. It has acted unwisely at times, and failed to
act at others. One need only think of the "safe areas" in Bosnia
and the genocide in Rwanda for instances of each.

It has sometimes been too divided to succeed, as appears to be
the case in the Security Council today.

But the United Nations, at its best, is a mirror of the world. It
reflects our divisions and disagreements as well as our hopes and
convictions.

As Dag Hammarskjold, the UN's great second Secretary-General,
put it, the UN was not created to take mankind to paradise, but
merely to save humanity from hell.

As it attempts to do so, the United Nations provides an
indispensable forum to bring states together to tackle the great
problems of our time.

Some say the Security Council is too much in thrall to its most
powerful member.

The debates over Iraq have proved that is not always the case. But
even if it were, it is far better to have a world organisation anchored
in geopolitical reality than one too detached from the verities of
global power to be effective.

A United Nations that provides the vital political and diplomatic
framework for the actions of its most powerful member, while
casting them in the context of international law and legitimacy (and
bringing to bear on them the perspectives and concerns of its
universal membership) is a United Nations that cannot be anything
but relevant to the world.

Large sections of the world's people desperately require help from
the United Nations to surmount problems they cannot overcome on
their own.

As these words are written, civil war rages in the Ivory Coast and
sputters in the Congo, and long-running conflicts may be close to
solution in Cyprus and Sierra Leone.

The arduous task of nation-building proceeds fitfully in Afghanistan,
the Balkans and East Timor. Twenty million refugees and displaced
persons from Palestine to Liberia and beyond depend on the UN for
shelter and succour.

Decades of development in Africa are being wiped out by HIV/Aids.

The resources needed to eliminate poverty, to bring girls into
school, to promote health and clean drinking water, have not been
made available at the levels required. None of these goals can be
met without the support of ordinary people around the world who
sustain the political will of their governments.

And yet they hear little about these issues, whose feeble echoes
are drowned out in the drumbeat over that other "i" word: Iraq.

The cliche about television news is supposed to be: "If it bleeds, it
leads." Today, radio, TV and even the print media appear to be
working on the presumption that: "If it might bleed tomorrow, it
must lead today."

No wonder that, in the single-minded obsession with just one issue
on the UN's vast agenda, a reporter can presume to speak of the
UN's putative irrelevance.

But is there any other institution that brings all the countries of the
world together to pursue collectively the security and welfare so
essential to our common humanity?

This is why I am proud to use the other "i" word, and to affirm the
UN's indispensability as the only effective instrument the world has
to confront the challenges that will remain when Iraq has passed
from the headlines.

* Shashi Tharoor is under-secretary general for communications
and public information at the UN. These are his personal views.

©Copyright 2003, New Zealand Herald