Let it be a day of reckoning

The founding fathers of the UN must be turning in their graves to see the current pathetic condition of their hand-made ideal of world peace and security. Frankly speaking, the world body today stands there in that glass-house in Manhattan, recklessly violated, right and left, making it a laughing stock before the world.

Therefore, it wouldn't be proper just to observe the official UN Day with great pomp and show, with flowers and bouquets, making high-sounding speeches, adopting goody-goody resolutions, and holding nice holiday parties. Rather, this day should be treated as a Day of Reckoning, a day for making amends, a day of atonement, a day of stock-taking and heart-searching. Are we really serious about having a world-body, worthy of its name?

If so, let us make a new move to bring about radical changes in the political infrastructure of the UN to make it more suitable and workable for the 21st century.

Cold war period: blessing in disguise?
It can't be denied that the UN, during its six decades of existence, has made tremendous progress and notable achievements, both in the economic and political fields, particularly during the 50s, 60s and 70s, which also covers the cold war period and the emergence of about one hundred countries from their centuries-old colonial rule, now making the majority of today's 190 members of the world organisation. But, unfortunately the rising star of the UN started getting eclipsed following the demise of the Soviet Union, leaving the sole superpower on Earth to have a field day. Whether the cold war period, maintaining a balance between the two of power-blocs, was good or bad is for the historians and posterity to judge, but the fact remains that it was a blessing in disguise for world peace and security.

The bloody events in Afghanistan and Iraq are glaring examples of what a particular superpower has done to the UN. The war on terror has created more problems than it can now solve. The sole superpower has created a monster with its much hyped war on terrorism, which is now serving as a double-edged sword. Bush is now up to his neck in the hot-soup of his own making as a result of his political follies in Iraq. But it makes little difference to Bush as well as his close associates like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld as long as Iraqi oil flow continues undisturbed to fill their coffers. But who can put a hurdle in the destructive path of such devotees of jungle rule? Perhaps only a strong and renovated UN can do that. And that is why Kofi Annan is moving that way.

Kofi Annan's new move
It may be recalled here that Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made a decisive move to bring about a vital change in the UN to boldly tackle global problems, and thus to revitalise the almost moribund world organisation. In a newspaper article last December, he announced the launching of a 16-member reform panel, headed by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun, to review the role of the world body in the light of the recent global divisions. The other members of the panel included former Russian Prime Minister Primakov, Arab League Sectary-General Amr Musa, former Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen, and National Security Adviser to former US President George Bush Sr, Brent Scowcroft.

In his article, Mr. Annan wrote that the panel would "focus primarily on the threats to peace and security" and the hard challenges lying ahead for the world organisation. Further elaborating his point, Mr. Annan mentioned "the events of the past year (2003) have exposed deep divisions among members of the United Nations on fundamental questions of policy and principle."

US Iraq adventure: A fork in the UN road
Thus the new move made by Mr. Kofi Annan raised new hopes in the minds of the peace-loving people of the world, particularly because of the UN's utter failure in taking any action, as recommended by the UN Charter, against the naked aggression committed by the US-led forces against another UN member state, Iraq.

However, it must be admitted that some of the Security Council members, both permanent and non-permanent, namely, France, Russia, China, and Germany, created a stumbling block for the US and its ally the UK to push through a resolution authorising the attack on Iraq.

When America realised that the Security Council members would vote against the US-sponsored resolution, it decided to by-pass the Security Council and jumped to unilateral action, showing utmost disregard, not only to the UN, but also to the world public opinion. It was a pity that the Security Council members that showed their boldness to stand up to say "No" to the US-led war on Iraq, felt shy to recommend UN action against the aggression. There lies the rub.

Annan blasts US-led war in Iraq
Kofi Annan, in his recent interview with BBC prior to his opening statement in the current 59th session of the UN General Assembly, boldly echoed the feelings of the peace-loving people of the world, when he blasted the US-led war against Iraq without UN authorisation as "illegal" and declared that it was "not in conformity" with the UN Charter, giving a broad hint that the UN needs vital reforms which can stop such breaches of international law and UN Charter.

In his speech in the current General Assembly session, Mr. Annan was more categorical, reiterating his earlier stand against Bush's Iraq policy, saying: "Those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it." He also dropped repeated hints about Bush's unilateral decision to invade Iraq. He also criticised Bush's plan to deliver democracy to Iraq through force. But Bush had already indicated, both within and without the UN, that he would defend his war in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of a sweeping global campaign to fight terror in the name of freedom!

The UN Secretary General deserves credit and appreciation for upholding the cause of the UN, particularly since the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Main issues before reform panel
The 16-member reform panel, which is expected to submit its recommendations to reform the UN to Mr. Annan by next December, has two main focal points before it. One is the expansion of the present 15-member Security Council, adding nine more members to it, of which five will be additional new permanent members. But the more decisive point will be whether the five new PMs will also enjoy the veto powers now being enjoyed by the current five. This is an old question which has been hanging fire before the Security Council because of difference of opinion. The best way out would be to abolish the much-abused veto-power of the permanent members and put them all at equal footing, both permanent and non-permanent members, thus making the decision-making organ of the UN more democratic.

Another issue that the reform body is to tackle is the question of developing a criteria as to when and how to evoke the relevant charter articles in the case of any aggression by a member country against another member country.

New aspirants for PM
It is a good sign that four countries, two Asian, one European, and one Latin American, namely Japan, India, Germany, and Brazil, are already in the field to campaign for permanent membership in the much-expected expanded Security Council. For Germany and Japan, the two emerging politico-economic giants, perhaps it won't be too difficult to win their much-desired slots. As regards India, the world's largest democracy professing a secular state-policy would be a nice choice from the Asian region. But before going ahead, India would have to mend its fences with its big and small neighbours, particularly Bangladesh and Pakistan, to earn their friendship, of which bright signals are already there. As they say, "good fences make good neighbours." As regards Brazil, although it was its own potential for getting such a status, it would be better to leave the question to the region it comes from.

Conclusion
The above analysis leads us to the conclusion that whatever may be the recommendations of the reforms panel, the questions of expansion of the Security Council -- doubling its present five permanent members, giving all council members, permanent and non-permanent, equal powers by demolishing the out-dated and much-vexed veto system -- should take centre-stage to stop any trigger-happy member state that goes against the UN Charter in its unilateral adventurism.

The UN should also, come up with a clear-cut definition of a "terrorist" and a "freedom-fighter" and also lay out strong measures to restrain an over-smart bullying state from misusing the UN Charter provision on the right of self-defence, provided under Article 51 of the charter.

If UN fails in this basic task of maintaining peace and security in the world, then it is bound to lead to a global free-for-all and state-sponsored terrorism. That would be doomsday for the UN.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.