As the world turns
Has the US stance on Iraq doomed the United Nations to "irrelevance"? Nyier Abdou asks UN Information Centre Director Dysane Dorani about the quixotic mandate of the real Big Brother
Dysane Dorani
|
These are difficult times for a top-level United Nations spokesman. In a job that by its nature demands a high standard of finesse, the upheaval within the UN Security Council over war in Iraq is testing the limits of UN diplomacy. Ever since US President George W Bush threw down the gauntlet and warned that the UN risked "irrelevance" by failing to act on the threat posed by Iraq, member states and UN diplomats alike have been working under the shadow of a cold threat.
Following this week's Herculean efforts to rally support for an authorisation of force, even US administration "dove" Secretary of State Colin Powell openly censured the UN as failing to live up to its responsibilities. "It seems to me the UN is damaged when there are members who do not want to stand up to the requirements of that resolution [1441] and take the action that was clearly intended in the absence of Iraqi compliance," he said on Friday. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer made it even plainer that the US was willing to sidestep the UN in a war on Iraq, noting last week that there was a precedent for US military intervention without UN backing in the Balkans.
Called on in times of crisis, turned to as an indisputable authority, yet often ridiculed as an unwieldy muddle plagued by bureaucratic hurdles, the UN is an imperfect beast. But it is a necessary one. "Could we imagine the world without the UN?" asks Dysane Dorani, director of the UN Information Centre for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "Imagine the world without the UN," he demands. "It would be anarchy."
By all accounts, the pending vote on a second resolution on Iraq is a critical moment in defining how the UN functions in terms of international diplomacy. Dorani, all too aware of the crisis of authority facing his organisation, is careful, but he is evidently frustrated with the overwhelming focus on would-be military endeavours.
"This is clearly a difficult test for the council," he muses. "But it's by no means the only test the UN faces. The UN is about more than Iraq. There are many other burning issues in the world which urgently need our attention." Though he is passionate about these issues -- HIV/AIDS, education, human rights, environmental issues -- there is an undercurrent of impatience as he lists the manifold concerns of his institution. While detractors maintain that the US is not the world's policeman, the UN is effectively acknowledged as the world's Big Brother -- and it's no easy job.
"Of course it's not perfect, 100 per cent," he concedes. "But we cannot judge the UN only through peacekeeping operations, or through [its efforts in] conflicts between countries. ... Seventy-five per cent of our activities are focussed on the field of humanitarian [issues]." Dorani points to economic and social programmes, like those in Africa, before turning back to the issue of conflict, noting that the UN has worked effectively in a number of crises, including those in Cambodia, Mozambique and currently in Angola. Today the focus is Iraq, but not long ago it was Afghanistan, and before that it was civil war in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the list goes on. "We are doing our best," he says.
Behind him, the Web site of Le Monde Diplomatique winks on his computer screen. Fluent in French and schooled at the Sorbonne, this Djibouti native is a veteran diplomat and no stranger to the inner workings of the Security Council. From 1993 to 1994, when he was deputy permanent representative to the UN, Dorani represented Djibouti at the Security Council. "I know the system -- more or less," he says. "I learned a lot," he adds, repeating this phrase contemplatively. "I learned a lot."
On this bright morning, the blinds of Dorani's office are drawn shut, and though it is still quite early, he seems worn out. He brushes aside caricatures of the UN as being pinned under the thumb of the US. "The UN is not playing handmaiden to the US," he says. "The United Nations is an association of member states," he adds, arguing that for the UN to be at its most effective, it has to be fully engaged with its most powerful member: the US. "On many issues, other members naturally look to the US for leadership," says Dorani. The US, in turn, recognises that its pursuit of national security, particularly in terms of military intervention, is "strengthened" by taking its case to the Security Council. "The Security Council has seldom functioned better than in recent months, when it has been the scene of vigorous discussion," maintains Dorani.
While the Security Council has undeniably been the venue of meaningful debate among nations, one might also argue that this could be the last gasp for the council's significance. The US has put unprecedented effort into proving "the moral case" for war, and despite impatience among hawks in Washington, President Bush has grudgingly tread the course of international acceptance. A failed resolution could be the excuse to abandon the UN route altogether -- something that US policy-makers have been drifting towards for some time.
Acknowledging that this has been the US's most dynamic effort to make its military decisions in the framework of the international community, Dorani underscores the importance of strengthening the Security Council. The outcome of the current deliberations in the council, he says, is "of the utmost importance", particularly in terms of the concept of collective security that was established in the UN charter in 1945. But Dorani also stresses that the UN is "not a pacifist organisation". While it is crucial to explore every avenue of diplomacy, the UN's role is not to prevent war. "Its founders knew there would be times when force must be met with force," Dorani notes. "That's why they wrote strong enforcement provisions into the charter -- to enable the world community to unite against threats to peace and defeat them."
Still, there is something odd about the fate of Iraq, and by extension, the rest of the Arab world, hanging on the votes of countries like Cameroon, Guinea and Chile. Were this vote to be put to the council at another time, the needs and international leanings of Angola would not be so relevant to the discussion of Iraqi disarmament. Asked if the quest for the nine votes unmasked a serious flaw in the weight of the Security Council, Dorani stresses that the members of the Security Council are themselves elected by the General Assembly. Furthermore, he notes, countries like Cameroon, Guinea and Pakistan are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, and are expected to represent the ideals of that caucus as well. "So we cannot say that this issue, this important issue, it's in the hands of Cameroon, or in the hands of Pakistan," says Dorani.
When pressed on this point, Dorani concedes that when it comes down to the final vote, the individual country does loom larger than the 191 member states which a non-permanent Security Council is meant to represent. But they are not "automatons" Dorani says. "They are free to decide according to their ..." he pauses before admitting that the best word here is "interests".
"I don't want to use the word 'interest' because from here ... we'll talk about economy, and financial assistance, and this and that," he says wearily.
Asked if he thought Arab nations could do more to influence the UN, Dorani argues that to do so is unnecessary. "There is no need," he says, seeming surprised. "Since the creation of the UN, we are assisting, or supporting, the Arab world." Calling on the crucial issue of Palestine, Dorani maintains that the UN's role within the Quartet -- the four players working on the peace process, the European Union, the UN, the US and Russia -- is significant. Pointing to other crises dealt with under the umbrella of the UN, such as the Suez crisis in 1956, Dorani again suggests that the UN needs no prodding on Arab issues. "We are doing our job, we are doing what we can do," he says. "It's not so easy sometimes."
