A matter of relevance
The US may want the UN to become irrelevant. But it cannot make it so if the rest of the world disagrees, says Abdel-Alim Mohamed*
Hammerskjold, former UN secretary-general, once said the "the task of the UN is not to make the world into a paradise, but to prevent it from becoming a living hell." Some may be tempted these days to conclude that the UN has failed, for the United States and Britain, sidestepping the UN Security Council, are waging a war against Iraq under the pretext of disarming and democratising it. But the UN is still relevant, and it has succeeded in at least one way. The UN has withheld its approval of the war. In doing so, it has deprived the current aggression of any veneer of legitimacy and forced the United States into unilateral action frowned upon by most of the international community.
The failure of the United States to secure nine votes in the UN Security Council, and the threat of French and Russian vetoes, has dented the US sense of superiority. For once, the non-permanent members of the Security Council let a superpower know it has gone too far. This was timely, for the US right-wing, which has been particularly virulent since 11 September 2001, had developed an alarming tendency towards regarding the UN with disdain. The view among the US right-wing is that the UN is merely a relic of the post-World War II past. President George W Bush has expressed this view repeatedly and even hinted that the UN should follow US dictates or risk becoming irrelevant.
It is not enough, however, for the UN to deprive the war of legitimacy. The UN should envision an effective role for the international community, one that is in harmony with the UN Charter, the mandate of the UN Security Council and the wishes of those nations that object to acts of aggression.
This is not the first, and will not be the last, time for the UN to face a crisis of such proportions. The UN has survived as long as it has because the international community needs it as a guardian of international law. The current crisis illustrates how vital the UN is for world peace and security.
The fact that the United States waged war against Iraq without UN authorisation does not mean that the UN Security Council should not continue to monitor the current conflict. The Security Council, by virtue of Article 361 of the UN Charter, has the right to discuss any conflict and to recommend ways of addressing it. This is particularly true for the Iraqi crisis, which has been voted on by the Security Council in the past and on which the Council has issued a number of resolutions, including 1441.
The Security Council should call for an urgent meeting to discuss ways of stopping the ongoing war. Of course, the United States and Britain would veto any resolution calling for an end to the hostilities. Yet, the Council needs to assert its authority and its mandate to promote world peace. It needs to keep both the United States and Britain under pressure.
Should the Security Council fail to end the war, it can call for the UN General Assembly to address the crisis. Article 12 of the UN Charter authorises the Council to ask the General Assembly to take action on matters threatening world peace and security whenever the Council fails to perform its tasks due to vetoes or any other complications. There is a precedent for such action. In 1950, the UN Security Council was unable to take action on the Korean crisis due to a Soviet veto. The General Assembly issued Decision 277, authorising US troops to enter Korea under the UN flag.
The current crisis differs in many ways from the Korean one, but this should not prevent the Security Council and General Assembly from carrying out their mandate, particularly since most nations, including several permanent members of the UN Security Council, are seriously alarmed by the US propensity to use force as a means of settling international disputes. The UN Security Council and General Assembly should remain involved in the current crisis, if only to assert the validity of international principles. The US may think the UN irrelevant. But if the rest of the world disagrees, the US will have to reconsider.
* The writer is deputy head of the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies
