The world body sustains too much of damaging blows

The most strange thing was the conspicuous silence on the part of most of the world leaders who had assembled at the summit to adopt Kofi Annan's 'reform package' for revitalising the UN. They seemed to be blunt, some even deaf and dumb. But, what was the 'psyche' that prevented them to take a united stand in favour of the reform proposals. Perhaps for the first time such division and disunity had been witnessed in the last sixty yeas of UN's existence. Everybody appeared to be shaky about own safety and survival. This reminds me of a comment made sometime back by that eminent Indian author and human rights activist, Arundhoti Roy: "There is not a country on God's earth that is not caught in the cross-hairs of the American cruise missile and IMF (US-dominated International Monetary Fund) cheque book." Does it need any further elaboration?

First blow to Annan's reform package
The straw always shows which way the wind blows. So what fate was awaiting UN Sec Gen's 'reform package' that he had presented to the special session of the UN General Assembly in May last, was clear when it was rejected outright by America, with a clear hint to Annan to return to where he belonged. What was the fault with the action plan of Annan? Annan had fallen from the grace of America for his recent description of US war against Iraq as "a fork in the road" of UN and the ultimate aim of his UN reform plan was to cleanse such 'forks' for the smooth passage for the world body towards peace, security and prosperity.

And that is why Annan, while presenting his plan of action to reform the UN, had urged the world leaders attending the summit to endorse his proposals as a 'package' in toto and not in piecemeal.

But America has its own way of weighing things as the world's only policeman to maintain peace and fight terrorism. It discerned many pitfalls and wrong signals around Annan's plan. America, therefore, rejected outright some of the vital issues mentioned in the plan, like the expansion of the Security Council either with additional six new Permanent Members or, adding a third-tier of semi-permanent members; and setting of guidelines to determine when military action can be authorised by UN, that is, member states could go to war under UN banner, against an aggressive nation. Thus America dealt the first blow to Annan's reform plan before it could take off.

Bull in a chinashop?
In fact, what a bull can do in a chinashop had been well proved by President Bush in that glass-house at Manhattan, known as the UNHQ. Kofi Annan couldn't foresee, or perhaps was not forewarned about the up-coming 'storm' that Bush released in Washington, and later had a hard-hit landfall in New York UNHQ. It swept away everything, uprooting whatever came its way, making panicky the delegates from some 190 member states that came to participate in the discussion and approval of the much-watered-down document, reduced from Annan's original plan of action. Actually, the deadly 'shot' to put an end to Annan's 'reform package' came openly from the newly-appointed US Ambassador to UN, John Bolton, a great favourite protege of George Bush and a die-hard anti-UN 'propeller,' who could openly declare that 'there is no such thing as UN,' and there is only international community which can be led by only superpower -- America. Bolton proposed more than 500 amendments to Annan's plan. So these five hundred 'shots' were more than enough to kill Annan's 'bird.'

Centre-piece of Annan's programme buried
The centre-piece of Annan's 'reform package' to revitalise the world body to meet the 21st century challenges, i.e. the expansion of the Security Council, had been shelved for ad infinitum. The Summit even had failed to establish an agreed definition of terrorism and left out a chapter on disarmament altogether. It was undoubtedly a great shock for Kofi Annan to think what had been made of his ambitious programme by vested quarters. But he had gathered enough courage to put a brave face when he opened the 60th annual General Assembly session on 17 September last, just after a day of the conclusion of the UN World Summit urging member states to "fully implement the wide-ranging" reforms endorsed by the just-concluded World Summit. Although UN Sec Gen didn't mention the flaws and hollowness of the much watered-down document endorsed by the world leaders, the critics thought that the world leaders had failed to address even the problems of terrorism and poverty.

Where to from here?
But where we go from here? "The peoples of the United Nations" in whose name the UN Charter was adopted on 26 June 1945, are now bewildered to see what some member states had made of the world body, which was established by its founding fathers on 24 October 1945, with 51 member states, known as 'original members'. The UN charter had then vowed "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". The opening chapter of the UN charter dealing with the purposes and principles of the UN, states that one of the purposes of the UN is "to maintain international peace and security" and to that end: "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace". There cannot be more clearer signals as to what to be done by the member states when world peace is in danger or when a weaker member state becomes a victim of aggression by a powerful member state.

Much was expected from the world leaders that had assembled at the UN world Summit to strengthen the present almost broken-down world body. There had appeared cracks in the much-hyped unity of the world leaders at most critical moment in the history of the UN. The bottom line is this that a superpower that now rules our world, wants to have the last say that would have to be echoed by the UN and all its related agencies, in whichever filed they might be working, economic development, or political spectrum or human rights. And to straighten things to reach its global target the 'veto' power of a permanent member of the security council is the most sharp and destructive 'missile' for them.

'Veto' system must be abolished
So in the last analysis, in order to save UN from going the League of Nations way the much cursed -- 'veto' power should be abolished for good. The 'veto' was a much-condemned system used by the Polish Parliament in the 18th century, which ultimately crippled the Polish Parliament. But the founding fathers of the UN copied it from there to serve as a 'safety valve' to maintain a balance between the opposing blocs in the UN, namely, the West, led by America, and the Socialist or Communist, led by Soviet Union. Now with the demise of the Soviet Union, veto is being misused and abused by vested quarters to save their selfish interests. Hence this curse should go immediately, with the expansion of the Security Council of both permanent and non-permanent members, all enjoying equal powers, any decision, political or otherwise, will be made by the majority of the members.

In case the Security Council fails to make such a decision to reform the Security Council, then the UN leaders would have to go for an alternative which the UN General Assembly had already shown in its resolution of 1950 known as the "Uniting for Peace" under which the General Assembly is authorised to take action if the Security Council, because of a lack of unanimity of its permanent members, fails to act in a case where there appears to be "a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression". The Assembly is also empowered by this resolutions to make recommendations to the member states for collective members, including the use of force, in the case of a breach of peace or act of aggression.

Whatever damage had to be done, has been done. Now let the right-thinking world leaders make consistent efforts to restore people's lost confidence in the world body. Let them pick up the broken pieces of Annan's 'reform package' and put them together again to make it workable, with due respect to the wishes and ambitions of "the peoples of the United Nations." This is an urge with due justification on this United Nations Day.

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.