The perceptions of the United Nations

The United Nations is viewed by some people with disappointment that it seems unable to solve some of the pressing humanitarian issues such as the one occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan. Or that it could not intervene effectively to stop the genocide in Rwanda.

Other people despise the UN for similar reason, but argue that the UN is simply incapable of acting meaningfully to solve any security issues.

Some people fear it, because they do not want any “world government”. They certainly do not want a standing “world army”.

Again, others persist with the belief that somehow the UN will reform itself, and the super-powers (the five Permanent Members of the Security Council) will relinquish their veto, or simply moderate its use to special circumstances only.

All these perceptions have one thing in common. Neither of them reflects the purpose or the true meaning of the United Nations.

The United Nations is the custodian, the upholder, of International Law. It is not the enforcer of that law.

To appreciate what International Law is, perhaps we ought to consider its origins. It started at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 when an International Directorate was established for the navigation of the Rhine. The “Superior Health Council” was established in 1838 with an inspectorate in Constantinople (Istanbul), to deal with any outbreak of cholera. Other such directorates followed as a result of international agreements.

The International Telegraph Union (1865) was the first IGO (intergovernmental organisation) that the USA joined. The fact that commercial planes can fly over many countries, or that, radio transmissions are restricted to given frequencies, are all the results of international agreements with an independent directorates.

These IGOs are not altered or changed if a government happens to change. It is a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that certain issues cannot be resolved by force but only by co-operation. Therefore, international law is a treaty, or agreement between governments, with an independent IGO to administer those agreements.

The United Nations is an umbrella organisation for all the IGOs. It was formed in 1945 in order to administer the Charter of the UN. The Charter itself was the result of a series of negotiations and treaties, starting with the Atlantic Treaty between Churchill and Roosevelt, leading on through Dumbarton Oaks (draft of a World Peace Organisation), Yalta and finally to San Francisco. (The actual conference between the 50 state representatives took 63 days to work out the details of the Charter.)

International law works very effectively in the scientific, technical and in commercial fields. However, it is in the field of security issues that the UN simply cannot act independently.

Security was always an important consideration throughout human history. It remains so today. (Though we ought to remember that “security” means the safeguarding of trading patterns and not just the access to resources. Can an international body deal better with these issues than individual states?)

According to the Charter, (Article 39) the Security Council alone can decide what is a threat to international security. If the five Permanent Members agree, then enforcement action can be taken. This happened in November 1990 when resolution 678 authorised “… Member States co-operating with Kuwait … to use all necessary means … to restore international peace and security in the area”. This resolution was supported by four of the five Permanent Members. (China abstained, but did not oppose the resolution.)

Sadly, this was the only time when the Permanent Five acted with a common purpose. Hence the independent forays of the various super-powers to pursue security if they consider it of importance to their own security. Examples are the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

International law is very fragile. It can be easily ignored, though, generally, nations are reluctant to do so because it would lead to complete unpredictability. It is human nature that we seek understanding and hence predictive capability in everything. International relations is just one of the fields in which we constantly try to improve our knowledge, and hence, improve the laws relating to it.

Another important fact we ought to bear in mind, that the role of the UN Secretary General resembles that of a company secretary, who tries to make the best with the wishes of a director or directors of the company. He is a diplomat and not an executive chairman.

Can the United Nations be reformed? Can the Charter of the UN be re-negotiated? Yes, but not by hoping that the Five Permanent Members will acquiesce in the dilution of their voting power by shear force of evidence and sweet persuasion. Other nations will have to insist, collectively, on the need to provide security for all and not just for the Permanent Five, as they see fit. All the nations (other than the Permanent Five) may just be able to do that.