United Nations Organisation At The Crossroads

[Mediocrates]

http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1168.html
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?

[Mediocrates]

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.

(The Views expressed are those of the author)

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email drsubhashkapila @yahoo.com) (drsubhashkapila%20@yahoo.com)

[KettleWhistle]

Interesting analysis, but really off on some points.


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.

Yes and no. The alternative would've been a massive invasion of Japan by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, resistance, often suicidal, at every corner, and years or highly violent occupation. That would've resulted in far more deaths on both sides and an enormous instability in the region. Many Japanese nowadays agree that the unconditional surrender forced upon them by the nuclear strikes helped them in the long run by minimizing the casualties, and by bringing the U.S. occupational authority to constructively work with them on restructuring and reconstruction.



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.

The above statement is essentially borderline idiocy. U.N. has been manipulated by every world power and by the coalitions of developing countries for decades. The author simply blames the U.N. decisions he doesn't like on either U.S. inaction (see his comments on nuclear proliferation,) or on the unilateral action on the part of the U.S., while outright ignoring the political manipulations that and conflicting agendas that happen behind the scenes. Futhermore, to blame ineffectiveness of the U.N. on a unilateral action of one of its members is just absurd. There were plenty of conflicts that were not put up for the discussion at the U.N., and that were unilateral in nature. U.S. needs to be given credit for presenting its case to other world powers instead of initiating action in a way similar to the Kosovo campaign.

[Luke90]

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.
Those fields were also included in the original Charter Preamble:

We the Peoples of the United Nations Determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom
To suggest that preventing war was the only real aim of the UN simply isn't correct.


wholesale elimination of organs like UNESCO, WHO, FAO, UNCHR. UN Human Right’s Commission etc
I certainly wouldn't want to see the the WHO disbanded, especially with the possibility of a Bird Flu Pandemic on the horizon.

[Roland]

The alternative would've been a massive invasion of Iran by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, resistance, often suicidal, at every corner, and years or highly violent occupation. That would've resulted in far more deaths on both sides and an enormous instability in the region. Many Iranians nowadays agree that the unconditional surrender forced upon them by the nuclear strikes helped them in the long run by minimizing the casualties, and by bringing the U.S. occupational authority to constructively work with them on restructuring and reconstruction.
I've just replaced Japan and the Japanese with Iran and Iranians. You could pick North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Chechnya, Cuba or anybody else, too.
Is actually using nuclear bombs the next step after declaring the UN irrelevant and quitting the ICBM treaty when the conventional invasion failes examplically in Iraq?

[Mediocrates]

Well that depends on your view of brinkmanship. Nuclear weapons are more valuable as a threat and not as an actual weapon. That is, a country has more to gain by simply possessing nuclear arms and making noises about using them than actually using them, assuming of course that people take their threats more or less seriously. This was, in the end the real lynchpin of the war in the Iraq - not that Iraq would someday have nuclear weapons and use them but that Iraq would have them and use that as a shield to go invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and possibly Iran (again). It's the use of nuclear weapons as a backmailing tool.

[Luke90]

Nuclear weapons are more valuable as a threat and not as an actual weapon. That is, a country has more to gain by simply possessing nuclear arms and making noises about using them than actually using them, assuming of course that people take their threats more or less seriously.
But does anyone believe that the US would use their nukes anymore?
I suppose they are looking at developing tactical nukes (bunker-busters etc.) but would the real big ones be a credible threat?

[Mediocrates]

Plenty of people believe we would absolutely retaliate in kind. We have about a dozen subs with 196-224 nuclear MIRV payloads in each one. Each boomer (sub) represents more nuclear firepower on its own, than every other country on earth except Russia. Each of the 24 missiles has an effective range of 6000nm and a sub can remain hidden, unknown for months at a time.


The real threat is a credible second strike capability. And even the Iranians or the North Koreans aren't crazy enough to cross that line. The Iranians have made numerous statements for example that "Israel is a little country, we are a big country, we can absorb many hits, they would be wiped out with one." But realistically no one doubts that a credible Israeli or American second strike would consist of dozens if not hundreds of strikes effectively eliminating Iran as a political entity from the face of the earth. Of course little Israel would too perish but the cost to the Arab/Farsi world would be inestimable.

Local tyrants like Saddam or Iran see nuclear weapons as a potent threat for either a first or second strike. By the nature of how these conflicts escalate, slowly, politically, they are able to hold out the WMD card as a plausible threat to hold off a counterthreat as well as using that potential force to extort concessions out of neighboring countries. Once could see that under different circumstances that an unchecked Iraq might have made a go of a reasonably effective nuclear program - probably one as least as viable as North Korea (unknown) or Pakistan (known). Now we know that Pakistan has nukes and it's one of things that keeps the Indian army from marching into Kashmir and just taking it. Similarly one can imagine that this alter-Saddam would have marched back into Kuwait or even Saudi Arabia holding a nuclear option in its back pocket. How much force would you mount against that as opposed to settling for negotiated ceasefire and carving up your own country which is what he wanted all along? And if anyone dared strike back massively then they clearly would strike back with nuclear power either at cities or at industrial lynchpins like oil ports or the straits of Hormuz. They don't have strategic range, but they don't need it. At the same time though they have a plausible threat of wrapping western Europe under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. If they could cover even a part of the EU then they could fracture the EU and play eastern Europe off against western Europe. They could both theaten and work with Russia to apply massive pressure.

[Luke90]

We have about a dozen subs with 196-224 nuclear MIRV payloads in each one. Each boomer (sub) represents more nuclear firepower on its own, than every other country on earth except Russia. Each of the 24 missiles has an effective range of 6000nm and a sub can remain hidden, unknown for months at a time.
6000nm=6mm...Impressive.
But seriously, I know there's a credible ability to launch a nuclear strike I was wondering whether they'd actually do it.


realistically no one doubts that a credible Israeli or American second strike would consist of dozens if not hundreds of strikes effectively eliminating Iran as a political entity from the face of the earth.
Certainly the US and Israel could do that but would they really do it. Surely they would just launch conventional strikes (or maybe a limited number of nukes) on military targets and try to take out the rest of the nukes.

[Mediocrates]

Well that's the game theory at least. I'm sure reality runs a little differently but that unknow-abilty only compounds the risk. The question you have to ask yourself is, why is there nuclear proliferation? In terms of tinpot cannibal kingdoms just building this year's model for a solid platinum edifice to the Maximum Leader's arrogance and ego, there's got to be a better and cheaper way. So they must believe that it has some practical benefit.

[Mediocrates]

BTW it looks like Koffi "the Butcher" Annan snuck out from under the oil for money scandal, having sacked Benon Sevan, the lifelong bureaucrat, right hand man and lifelong friend who was appointed by him to administer the program. Hold your noses ladies cause that whitewash is getting pretty damn thick.

[Mira]

The Iranians have made numerous statements for example that "Israel is a little country, we are a big country, we can absorb many hits, they would be wiped out with one."

They are looking to develop an unusually large number of nuclear facilities, around 20 according to many reports I've read. Both the US and FSU have had accidents in the past and if Iran is doing most of this covertly, there is a pretty good chance that they will have problems too.

[Illuminatus]

AP Exclusive: Volcker scrutinizing Annan documents in son's role in oil-for-food program (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--oil-for-food-anna0205feb05,0,1753417.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)

[..Investigators probing alleged corruption at the United Nations oil-for-food program are scrutinizing thousands of pages of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's documents, including e-mail and phone records, to determine whether he exerted influence in securing a contract for a Swiss company that employed his son. ..]

It's all closing and crashing in on this top UN weasel.

Question is, where should he spend his time in prison?

a) Iraq
b) Ghana
c) Sweden

hmmmm........

[Mediocrates]

Warcrminals are usually hanged.

[Luke90]

Well that's the game theory at least. I'm sure reality runs a little differently but that unknow-abilty only compounds the risk. The question you have to ask yourself is, why is there nuclear proliferation? In terms of tinpot cannibal kingdoms just building this year's model for a solid platinum edifice to the Maximum Leader's arrogance and ego, there's got to be a better and cheaper way. So they must believe that it has some practical benefit.
Well clearly there is an advantage for some of these dictatorships because people believe that they'd be willing to use them.
It was countries like the US and Israel which I thought less likely to nuke anything.

[Mediocrates]

Less likely is exactly the point behind non proliferation. No one seriously believes that countries like Korea or Iran or Pakistan have a credible threat escalation failsafe process that can insure that nukes never get used 'accidently'. In fact the US removed its own first strike option, launch on warning years ago. Its simply not in the program. The Russians claim to have NOT done the same and still reserve first strike in their operational doctrine. China is blank on the point. The UK and France I think legally have to remove it as an option. India is vague, citing 'threats' clearly from Pakistan, China and now Iran. Israel on the other hand may or may not even have a second strike capacity. They may, but no one but them knows. In either case it comes down to threat escalation and the cycle times. If Israel felt its existence was threaten or it was sure that it was, it would probably launch against someone. Taking the rest of the bastards down is as good a doctrine of deterrence as any. But it depends on the immediacy of the threat. Israel is a tiny country you can overfly in fighter plane in just a few minutes. Missiles from Iraq in 90-91 had just a few minutes flight time and the technology at the time gave them 15-30 seconds warning. Today it's better but still only 10 minutes or so. 10 minutes is pretty thin for a margin and one which may preempt any decision to wait and see. Even one medium sized WMD anywhere outside of the Negev would be the end of Israel either immediately or within a few months. It would be impossible in that window to determine if the threat was directed against cities or against say Dimona or storage bunkers around the country. The decision path to launch would have to be the same. So, will they launch? I think if the perceived threat is great enough they would. They demonstrated a willingness to say they would in 1973 whether they had the capability to do it, is a guess.

[The Indian]

There is some speculation that Israel may have second strike capability with its Dauphin class submarines. In a conflict, or threat of one, Israel could deploy nuclear weapons to launch on short release, either through combat air patrol deployment or on naval vessels.

India is not really ambigous when you read the fine print on the Indian nuclear doctrine. ;) It has a no first use policy, but if India is attacked or threatened to be attacked using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, then it reserves the right to defend and protect itself using whatever means necessary. The threats to India are from China, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia and to a much lesser extent Iran.

[Roland]

Warcrminals are usually hanged.

Not necessarily:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2886931.stm

Belgium rethinks war crimes law

Belgium's governing parties are scrambling to amend a controversial law which some fear could be used in a war crimes lawsuit against US President George W Bush.
The law allows Belgian courts to pass judgment on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, regardless of where the alleged acts took place or the nationality of the accused.
Critics have warned that a case against President Bush could be filed under the law, known as universal competence, and Belgium's role as host to international institutions could be threatened.
"I expect there to be, any day, a suit against President Bush in Belgium," said Herman De Croo, president of the lower house of parliament.
Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt hosted intense negotiations among political leaders from his coalition to discuss the threat, parliamentary sources said.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned last week that Belgium's status as an international hub may be jeopardised by the legislation, which applies to officials once they leave office.
"It's a serious problem," said Mr Powell, after he was named last week in a lawsuit for alleged crimes during the 1991 Gulf War, along with former President George Bush Snr and current Vice President Dick Cheney.
The lawsuit was filed by seven Iraqi families over the bombing of a civilian shelter in Baghdad that killed 403 people.
The bombing of a shelter in Baghdad in 1991 now before the courts
Mr Powell served as the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and Cheney as defence secretary during the 1991 Gulf War.
Some 30 current or former political leaders are facing action under the law, including Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Cuban President Fidel Castro.
Relations are already tense between the United States and Belgium, which has been a fierce critic of the war on Iraq and helped spark an unprecedented crisis at Nato last month.
Brussels regional leader Francois-Xavier de Donnea warned that action taken under the universal competence law risked calling into question the role of city as the seat of international institutions.
Compromise proposal
Discussion of the law comes only a week before Belgium's parliament is due to be dissolved before legislative elections scheduled for 18 May.
According to parliamentary sources, the parties in the ruling coalition are divided over the extent of amendments to the law.
Mr Verhofstadt's Liberals, backed by Flemish-speaking Socialists, have proposed a "diplomatic filter".
This would allow the government to send any cases to the country where the alleged crimes took place, providing it is democratic.
Francophone socialists and ecologists fear that the law would be made toothless if overly radical amendments are allowed.
Mr Powell said last week that Belgium should take the warnings about the law seriously - warnings that are all the more topical after the start of a war which critics claim is illegal.

[Roland]

6000nm=6mm...Impressive.
LOL

nm = nautic miles

[Illuminatus]

[..UNITED NATIONS — A scandal about the sexual abuse of Congolese women and children by U.N. officials and peacekeepers intensified Friday with the broadcast of explicit pictures of a French U.N. worker and Congolese girls and his claim that there was a network of pedophiles at the U.N. mission in Congo.

ABC News' "20/20" program showed pictures taken from the computer of a French U.N. transport worker. The hard drive reportedly contained thousands of photos of him with hundreds of girls. In one frame, a tear can be seen rolling down the cheek of a victim.

The news report coincided with the U.N.'s new "zero- contact" rule banning any interaction between U.N. soldiers and locals in Congo.

The staffer, Didier Bourguet, 41, is facing charges of sexual abuse and rape in France. His lawyer, Claude de Boosere- Lepidi, said in court last week that there was a network of U.N. personnel who had sex with underage girls and that Bourguet had engaged in similar activity in a previous U.N. posting in the Central African Republic. ..]

LATimes: The French staffer they implicate says that the Congo mission harbors a pedophile network. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-unsex12feb12,1,1350204,print.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=2&cset=true)

All this should come to no surprise.

[Luke90]

nm = nautic miles
I figured that, it just amused me because I'm used to SI units.