Reply #385: Accept U.N. for what it isn't...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

...

The blunt reality is that far too much is expected of the U.N., especially when it comes to upholding global security and intervening in individual nations. The U.N. embraces a number of agencies. Although some are duds, some, like UNICEF, are highly respected and full of wonderful and dedicated people who do immense good in relieving human suffering round the world.

The U.N. is also by far the best collective forum at which to address, if not fully solve, such crucial world issues as water shortages or weapons trading. Optimists thought that once the Cold War was over it would also become the guardian of world security, driven forward by a united Security Council and, in particular, by unity among the five permanent council members who have the veto. But the prospect of a new liberal world order was always a pipe dream.

China, for example, has made it crystal-clear that it doesn't care at all for U.N. resolutions demanding intrusion within national territories, regardless of the horrors said to be going on. Russia is not much more enthusiastic. While the British and the Americans have tended to be on the same side since the U.N.'s inception in 1945, the French have their own awkward agenda, as was demonstrated before the Iraq invasion.

This is the dysfunctional grouping at the heart of the U.N., thrown together by circumstances after World War II and unreformed ever since. Would changing the membership, and possibly the powers, of this central group improve matters?

Obviously, Japan and Germany should be part of any lead grouping, and India as well. A recent high-level panel as suggested two alternative ways to expand the Security Council. But whatever the reorganizational maneuvers, the basic reality has to be faced: The U.N. is a useful discussion forum and may be adding real value in persuading more nations to respect democratic values, but it is not the Parliament of Man, nor the sole source of international legitimacy, nor the guardian of global security. It never could be, and to expect its secretary general and staff to deliver on these fronts, and worse still, to attack them personally when they do not, is expecting far too much and quite unfair.

For maintaining global security and for addressing specific and destabilizing affronts to human rights, the world will continue to have to rely on coalitions of nations coming together and agreeing on common action. If the disparate U.N. can be brought to endorse such actions, well and good. If not, that should be no surprise. But nor should it be an excuse for lambasting this well-meaning organization and its managers.

...

David Howell is a former British Cabinet minister and former chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. He is now a member of the House of Lords.

The Japan Times: Feb. 11, 2005

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/geted.pl5?eo20050211dh.htm