 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 July 1999 Issue No. 436 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 1 - 7 July 1999 Issue No. 436
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Special Interview Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters Making the UN work
By Tahsin Bashir *
Few people, whether private individuals or government officials, seem to realise how grave a challenge post-Cold War developments have posed to the basic nature of the UN system. Many commentators have concentrated their attacks on the unilateral action the US government has taken in the last few years; but now, with Kosovo, the evidence can no longer be ignored. The issue is not simply the US's eagerness to take unilateral action, taking advantage of the fact that the bipolar era is over. The real challenge is that, in the post-Cold War era, there are certain problems that the traditional UN system cannot handle effectively.
The UN has two fundamental raisons d'ètre. The first was its role in containing conflicts between the superpowers, particularly the US and the former USSR, within a system that prevents monopolies on power and the use of force, whether as a threat or as an actual method of dealing with international problems. Article 51 of the UN Charter places limits on the use of force, and suggests the circumstances in which force could be a legitimate tool. For almost half a century, the UN succeeded in preventing a world war, triggered by a conflict between the US and the Soviet Union.
The second reason for the UN's existence was the need for a mechanism allowing a relatively smooth process of decolonisation, and providing for the self-determination of newly independent nations that had come to join the world community in the era following the struggles for liberation in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
In the post-Cold War era, however, the world is facing problems that the UN Charter does not deal with adequately. This is only normal, for those who signed the founding charter in 1945 could not have imagined the developments that would ensue during the following half century.
A major question today is whether the prevention of genocide, in Rwanda, Bosnia or Kosovo, can be managed by sovereign nation-states, or whether the international community as a body has to intervene. The problem of potential clashes between national sovereignty and the violation of people's rights anywhere in the world is a real dilemma. Policy-makers have not invented new mechanisms to deal with this challenge, whether they hail from the industrialised countries or the members of the Non-Aligned Movement, to name just two examples.
The problem takes on different dimensions when a sovereign government no longer exists, as was the case in Somalia. Must chaos be allowed to break out? Can the world community allow the warlords to hold sway, and look with indifference upon the agony and suffering of the people they are murdering?
US unilateralism -- in the sense that the US takes the lead, whether in addressing a given problem or in ignoring it -- emerged gradually in Somalia, Rwanda, and Iraq. It had become a clearly established pattern by the time the truth of the Kosovo tragedy hit the airwaves. The UN tried at first to lend some elasticity to its interpretation of Article 51, then turned to past UN experience to justify its helplessness; ultimately, however, the US, in alliance with one or more NATO members, showed only blatant disregard for the axioms of world peace and stability. The UN's 50-year experience in establishing and nurturing the foundations of the orderly and legitimate use of force was destroyed seemingly overnight.
The UN bureaucracy, starting with the secretary-general, does not have the means at present to handle peace-keeping operations in which troops must actually impose the international consensus by force. The UN Secretariat has not developed a central command system, nor, for that matter, a UN intelligence system, to deal with these challenges. So its authority in enforcing UN decisions cannot be decisive in the complex situation we face today.
This challenge makes it incumbent upon all of us -- the permanent members of the UN, but also all the peoples of the world -- to devise collective mechanisms capable of dealing with the challenges of the modern international system, whether they relate to genocide or to other violations of basic human rights. We must rethink the UN Charter and devise mechanisms adapted to new challenges to peace. Only legal measures can prevent the international system from declining further into a morass of chaos and anarchy.
* The writer is a veteran Egyptian diplomat and expert on foreign affairs.
