UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION AT THE CROSSROADS

UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION AT THE CROSSROADS

by Dr Subhash Kapila

Introductory Observations:

The United Nations came into existence in 1945 on conclusion of World War II in which the world witnessed unprecedented death and destruction, made possible by the harnessing of advanced technologies in the instruments of war. The United States use of atomic bombs against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the massive destruction in its wake vividly illustrated how horrific future wars could be.

Gripped with this fear and horror, the victorious nations and other nations got together and established the United Nations Organisation. The Charter of the United Nations spelt out that the primary objective was “ to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.”

In the last sixty years of its existence, the United Nations had to manage and cope with security conflicts ranging from the Cold War era to post-Cold War and now the abominable spectacle of global terrorism of the Islamic Jehad variety as exemplified by the Al Qaeda, Taliban and Pakistan state-sponsored terrorism against India in Jammu and Kashmir, more specifically.

The United Nations Has Failed:

If the primary aim and role as envisaged by its founders was to spare humanity from the “scourge of war” then it would not be wrong to argue that the United Nations has failed, as the following brief examination would indicate:

Prevention of Conflict: The United Nations in the last sixty years, as the record would show, was unable to prevent conflicts and wars breaking out all over the world e.g. Korean War, Vietnam War, Soviet military occupation of Afghanistan, the United States sponsored Islamic Jehad via Pakistan on Afghanistan against the Soviets, the three Gulf Wars and the wars leading to the break up of Yugoslavia.
Conflict Resolution: Unable to deter conflict, the United Nations has been a failure in conflict resolution also. In fact it seems that over the years, vested interests have impeded conflict resolution as it served the purpose of keeping in being a large number of United Nations missions, observer groups and ‘Advisers’ to the United Nations Secretary General. Cambodia seems to be the only exception.
Nuclear Proliferation and Disarmament: The prevention of Nuclear Proliferation should have been accorded top-most priority along with nuclear disarmament. Here again the record of United Nations agencies charged with this task has been deplorable. The United Nations did not focus, highlight or condemn any of the following developments:
· China’s assistance to Pakistan in development of nuclear weapons.

· China’s supply of nuclear capable missiles and missile technology to Pakistan.

· China’s assistance in building up of North Korea’s long-range and nuclear capable missiles.

· Pakistan’s supply of nuclear weapons technology to North Korea.

· United States permissiveness in tolerating all of the above developments. Inaction despite CIA evidence was sought to be justified by the United States on grounds of lack of “actionable intelligence”.

Obviously, structural inadequacies of the United Nations, the resolve and political inclinations of the United Nations Secretary General and the strategic interests and preferences of the United Nations Security Council permanent members were at play.

War on Terrorism: Terrorism especially after 9/11 has acquired a disturbing salience in global security. More so, when there are indications that the Al Qaedists could use nuclear ‘dirty bomb’ or chemical and biological weapons against their so called enemies i.e. USA, Israel and India and other Western countries too. The United Nations should have been overwhelmingly and single mindedly dedicated in its efforts towards this end.
Why Has the United Nations Failed in its Primary Role:

The United Nations has failed in its primary role of securing the international community against the “scourge of war” in the estimate of this author, due to the following reasons:

The United Nations has deviated from its primary role of preventing conflicts and over-extended into fields extending from education, to health, to humanitarian issues, to social and cultural fields.
The United Nations today has emerged as an overextended empire with vested interests to enlarging its extent from New York to Paris to Rome and all sorts of UN advisors present from Africa to East Timor.
The United Nations bureaucracy is too heavy and flabby with no justifiable functions.
Millions of US dollars are spent on United Nations functions and operations other than the primary role of conflict prevention.
United Nations operations and functions which could be performed by regional organisations or players are abrogated or duplicated by United Nations organisations.
Millions of United Nations dollars are spent on various committee meetings and honorariums to their select members which have no connection at all with global security.
Non-traditional security threats are being given priority at the expense of conflict prevention. This again is part of United Nations empire-building by vested interests.
All of the above could lead to the failure of the United Nations as an effective instrument for conflict prevention and global security, more so today, when the world is passing through uncertain and testing times as far as global security is concerned.

United Nations at the Crossroads:

The United Nations can truly be said to be at the crossroads. This is evidenced by the inclination of the world’s only superpower namely, the United States to bypass the United Nations, tired of its obstructiveness and endless meetings. It is also evidenced by the concern of other powers that the United States as the leading power is hijacking the United Nations and that the United Nations be made more representative by restructuring United Nations Organisation.

In view of the above, the United Nations is at a critical juncture of its existence and the leading powers of the world including the emerging ones have to ponder over the following questions:

Will restructuring of UN organs and making them more representative, especially the Security Council, would make the United Nations more effective?
or

Would reviewing the existing over extended roles and restricting the United Nations to its primary role of global security management and prevention of conflict, make the United Nations more effective?
While deciding on the above questions, certain terms of reference need to be recorded and these are:

United Nations cannot substitute or provide for a ‘world government’.
While pursuing a more representative character of its Security Council, the Security Council as the supreme body for global security management cannot be allowed to become a “trade union”.
Global security management is frightfully expensive and hence United Nations operational costs need to be drastically reduced by a wholesale elimination of organs like UNESCO, WHO, FAO, UNCHR. UN Human Right’s Commission etc, and all the various exotically named standing committees.
In the same context espousing creation of standing and dedicated United Nations Military Force needs to be excluded.
United Nations Future Challenges:

Future challenges to global security are not going to be global wars but more of asymmetric type of wars, limited wars, insurgencies and terrorism. All of these would be more possibly driven by religious fundamentalism, ethnic strife and ethnic genocide.

The Greater Middle East and Africa are more conflict prone than other regions of the world. Conflictual flash points exist in East Asia and South-West Asia.

In terms of security management, the United Nations would be challenged by a variety of scenarios namely:

Regional instabilities caused by ‘rogue states’ especially those with a record of nuclear proliferation.
‘Failed states’, where the state apparatus, rule of law and economic breakdown lead to state disintegration by exorbitant defence expenditure and corruption.
Conflicts over control of energy resources, strategic materials and water-sharing.
United Nations' Responses to Future Security Challenges.

United Nations' responses in terms of security management of future challenges would basically boil down to:

· Preventive Diplomacy

· Conflict Prevention

· Peace Building

Implicit in all of the above would be the necessity of using military force if necessary. In terms of using military force for global security management, the United Nation would have to fall back on the use of any one of the following options:

· Military and diplomatic assets of the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council

· Military assets of any other nations willing to join a UN Coalition.

· Military assets of regional organisations and regional powers to ensure and enforce peace in their regions.

United Nations has to divest itself of UN Peace Keeping Operations (PKO). Such PKO activities, it has been seen become endless. UN empire building exercises draining disproportionate financial resources. Such PKO operations also have a tendency to delay conflict resolution and many a times rendering them totally irrelevant to the existing ground realities e.g. The United Nations Military Observer Group in Kashmir stationed in India and Pakistan wasting resources in redundant roles.

The criteria for both the present Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and those to be included in any future expansion should be:

· Commitment to provide their military assets to the United Nations for global security management when called upon to do so, without any preconditions or reservations.

· Commitment to share expenses for global security management.

· Commitment to share expenses for peace-building operations where and when required.

Countries like China without any financial contribution to the United Nations and no military contribution towards any UN coalition forces should not qualify for Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council.

As in nature, where there is a hierarchical order in operation, so should it be for global security management. It is already operative as seen by United States unilateral military assertiveness by passing the United Nations. This has come about because global security management cannot be done by a “trade union” of countries demanding equitability but without contributing or being in a position to contribute for the “Peace Umbrella” that they seek from the United Nations.

Concluding Observations:

In global security management there is no room for “liberalism” or “peace offensives”. The definition of peace itself is negative; it means a state of absence of war. So if war is to be absent than the resultant peace has to be secured by the United Nations, by use of force if necessary.

United Nations Organisation was primarily charged with the responsibility of saving future generations from the “ scourge of war”. The United Nations should exclusively concentrate on this role and divest itself from social, cultural, economic and environmental issues. The manner in which security challenges are manifesting themselves in the 21st Century and the disparate destructive forms that are appearing can only be combated by a United Nations exclusively focused on global security management.