The Ineffective UN and the Tamils







The United Nations Resolution 1483 has given unprecedented powers to the victors of a war. Have France, Germany & Russia, the main trio of the war's opponents, reduced the United Nations to the position of a mere underling, while the allies fan themselves with the glorious feeling that they have not only been vindicated, but their war has been validated.

By the terms of Resolution 483. the Allies have total and exclusive control over the Iraqi Development Fund. The U.N's "Oil for Food" program will be phased out in 6 months. The U N and its allies, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund the Arab Fund for Social & Economic Development are relegated to a position of having seats on an Advisory Board which can only monitor and audit the fund. What do auditors do. Nothing more than ensure that the fund is legally operated. There are no legal limits on the Allied powers ability to administer and operate that fund other than the obvious bar, that it cannot be used for unpermitted and unwarranted purposes. All sanctions which the French, Germans & Russians initially wanted maintained have been lifted. The arms embargo which all supported continues to be maintained. Thus, the Economic development of Iraq is an exclusive Allied responsibility. The U.N and its allies are distant spectators only to ensure that the funds are not used for extraneous purposes. That is hardly a power filled roll.

What of the political control of the country ? This again is in Allied hands with the proviso that it will do so with a view to establishing a new government in Iraq. That was the allied objective from the beginning. Has the U N any significant roll to play in this arena ? They will have a special representative who can meet directly with Iraqi groups while assisting the allied authorities to establish a new government The roll of establishing a new government is in allied hands. The U N representative may assist but not interfere with Allied plans, suggestions or actions in seeking to attain these objectives. The problems the allies may face in attaining that political goal are referred to later.

Finally, there is no provision for renewing or limiting the allied time table. It is up to them and them alone to decide and determine when their objectives have been realized. The United Nations Security Council is limited to reviewing the situation every 12 months. They may push, prod and prattle over what can be done better, but their roll stops there. They have neither legal or executive powers of any significance. The fact that the Allied role is not automatically renewable is meaningless in the circumstances, since it virtually is.
Has the U N been granted any other concessions worthy of note ? Does the fact that U N Inspectors may be permitted to go in sometime in the future really mean anything at all. The allies must really be laughing up their sleeves at the U N if they think they have regained any exercise of power by obtaining this concession. The occupying forces have only discovered stealth bombs among prohibited items. Can the these Inspectors be expected to discover the undiscoverable, or even the discoverable which an occupying force has been unable to unearth?  Can a bunch of Inspectors tip toeing their way gently so as not to tread on Iraqi toes be more capable than an occupying force in finding any contraband ? The whole idea is ludicrous 

How did this unusual situation come about ? Were France and its alliance of objectors to the war responsible for reducing the United Nations to this subordinate status in the world of International affairs? Did Chirac and his supporters really expect another Vietnam ? Was not an allied victory not inevitable to anyone with any military know how ? Could the U N have come out looking and smelling better had its Secretary General not sided with this trio of losers. The chances are they would have. By opposing the war they opted out of it and its consequences. They have thereby lost all rights to dictate to the victors how the post war problems should be handled. Resolution 1483 implicitly recognizes this. As the German Ambassador to the U.N. Gunter Pleuger aptly put it " The war we did not want and the majority of the council did not want has taken place. We cannot undo history" 

The French Ambassador on the other hand engaged in some wishful thinking when he said " The Resolution provided a credible framework within which the International community will be able to to lend support to the Iraqi people" The resolution does nothing of the kind. It only allows the Allies to lend a helping hand to the Iraqis to form a government of their own The international community through their representative can assist and suggest, but not do anything to lend or withdraw support to the Iraqi people. The Russian Ambassador was even further off the mark when he claims that "I don't see anything in this resolution that would be legitimizing the war.......It clearly brings the situation within the International law area" If giving the victors unprecedented powers is in accordance with International law, so be it.

The Secretary General like the French and Russian Ambassadors has by his conflicting positions before and after the war lost all credibility. This dire opponent of the war who claimed in the the second week of the campaign that " I have always said war is a human catastrophe......and in fact, in war, all are losers" now says "I have always held that the Unity of this Council is the indispensable foundation for effective action to maintan international peace and security and international law" How can this opponent of all wars now acclaim a resolution that grants to the victors of this war all the powers they could wish for ? Are not the two things he "always said" and "always held" in conflict with each other. Does he not have the guts to say he opposes this resolution because it does in fact legitimize the war which he vehemently opposed, or does he not have the power to do so? Is he just a trampled toy at the hands of the allies? Is that the independent roll expected of the U.N. and its Secretary General?

This is the same supposedly neutral head of the world organization, sometimes referred to as the secular pope, who delightedly acclaimed this wars vociferous opponents by proclaiming:\

" I have never seen a situation where before a shot is fired,   millions have taken to the streets"

Did this world leader who also claimed that his "thoughts were with the Iraqi people who face another ordeal" take into account those very people and those in Iran and Syria who could not voice their approval of an impending invasion or raise a voice against their dictatorial rulers? It is easy for American and European spoiled brats who have not suffered a days ordeal under the vicious rule of a vicious dictator to proclaim the rights of such a ruler to continue to rule. It is quite another to experience his cruelty and pray for his execution. It is also easy for the Secretary General to seek and get approval from those who can be heard, while ignoring those who cannot.

The Secretary General was most insistent that the legitimacy of the U N was proven in the weeks preceding the war when he said,

"Over the past weeks, the peoples of the world have shown what great importance they attach to the legitimacy conveyed by the authority of the U.N."

What has happened to that legitimacy, now that the victors have prevailed. These are victors who the Security Council and Secretary General condemned for defying their authority. Does that legitimize the War or the United Nations? Does the unanimity of the resolution granting the victors of the war nearly all the powers they sought, enhance the power of the United Nations who opposed the war or the allies who won it?  Are the members of the Security Council and The Secretary General suffused with confusion?

When the war began, the Secretary General said to a reporter "Perhaps if we had persevered a little longer " How much longer. Does he realize that the allies have accomplished in 19 days what the U N has not in 19 years? Its one thing to sympathize inordinately with the plight of a people who seek relief from their misery and another thing to take action to end it.  What did the Secretary General seek?  Was he hoping to contemplate and ponder their plight while mouthing the inanities of a pretentious peace maker like "Peace in our time" Did he adopt the classic U,N. position "let things be and all will be well" as long as they have time "to debate it to death"

Did he question the motives of the nations that opposed the war. France made a fortune off Saddam, Germany got beneficial oil deals while Russia was Saddam's creditor. The "Oil for Food" program which the Secretary General so fervently wanted restored was a corrupted farce. Over a billion dollars in cash was found stacked away from the populace while those in power had Mercedes Benz Limos and the luxuries of the affluent west that they so love to condemn.  The money found would have made each and every one of the 20 thousand Iraqis a millionaire instead of reducing them to struggling, starving, ragged peasants. Does the Secretary General oppose the phasing out of the "Oil for Food Program" program he so earnestly wanted restored. If so, why does he not say so ? Has he instead reconciled himself to being nothing more than an out maneuvered puppet under the control of the only super power and its allies?

Which brings me to the question, was the situation any different when there were two super powers. The fact is that each of them  manipulated the world with their own political and military allies at their side. Prime Minister Nehru's neutral third world force was an ineffective factor in World affairs. They had more pomp and ceremony than power. The reality is that India was armed and supported by the Soviet Union during the cold war, while Pakistan was a member of S E A T O and an ally of America. Israel with it's powerful ally, the United States, was able to defy U N security council resolutions with impunity. The powerless who had no such allies and sought to be independent were subject to sanctions when they defied the powerful. It was not the U N but its power mongers who wielded power. Even those U.N.sanctions which the power blocs ignored were ignored by the recipients of them. The only sanctions to be imposed were those that the powerful demanded. The powerless could collide with the U N but not its powerful ember States. Did the U N have any impact on the Soviet invasion of Hungary, The Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Crisis, Tenneman Square, The conquest of Space, The Global Economy or any event of significance since its creation. Its allied organizations like U.N.E.S.C.O, The World Health and Labor Organizations and others are worth the weight of their highly recognized accomplishments. The political arm of the U N however is questionable

If the Allies with American determination and efficiency shore up Iraq's economy, they will have another feather in their cap. Finding an acceptable successor to Saddam among its warring factions will however prove to be a much more daunting task. This could take years, if not for ever. Does this reduce Iraq to becoming a colony? The allies will say its up to the Iraqis to prevent that, and nothing is further from the truth. Are the Iraqis who could not get rid of Saddam, capable of finding their own alternative to him ? That is their roll and their obligation  to their people. The Allies have little control over this other than to maneuver, push and prod the factions to reach an agreement. The U N's roll in this is less than that of the allies, since all their representative can do is assist the allies to fulfill this obligation.. The Iraqis may prefer less rather than  more interference from outsiders, but may well be incapable of finding a solution on their own.

This brings me to our war for Independence or the creation of a Federal State. Combatants like the L T T E fighting against member states of the U.N. have no rights to address the General Assembly or Security Council. Battles against member nations that discriminate against segments of their populace cannot be waged or voiced here.  Both the Security Council and The General Assembly are protectors of its member states against its detractors. The only forum where issues of national discrimination and human rights transgressions can be addressed is the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION  of the U.N. in Geneva. They have a summer session when non governmental organizations [ N.G.O's] can articulate their grievances. It provides an excellent outlet for  making the plight of the oppressed known internationally.  It serves a great purpose and should be maintained.  Sadly, it lacks executive powers to remedy the sufferings of the deprived. The main body in New York will not even see or hear us. They have no time for us; and we have no time for them. That organization may as well be defunct as far as we are concerned

This brings me to one final question. Does the U N serve a purpose by allowing parties time to breath and reflect and thereby avoid war or prospects for war. It did not do so in this instance. It had no roll in the Bay of Pigs. the Hungarian invasion, or Tenneman Square, it did nothing to avert the Cuban missile crisis though the subject was debated there, it failed to reduce tensions between Croations and Serbs in Kosovo, and above all has done nothing to support the Cechnians in Russia or freedom fighters anywhere.  What has it ever done that makes its expensive continuance worth our while. Even when we succeed in our quest to be a nation, the U N will do nothing but grant us a seat in their ineffective chamber, after the fact. Most new nations have been deluded by this honor and have spent more money belonging to it than achieving anything through it. We should save our time, our energy, our breath our health and our money and set an example by boycotting it. Others may follow suit.*

* The only drawback about this daring suggestion is that we would be
deprived of the excellent services of its other organs. We could join the U.N. to avail ourselves of those services while decrying the inadequacies and
inequities of the General Assembly and Security Council. We would however
not be disqualified from paying our dues to the World Bank and I M F to
obtain the services of these two organizations which are independent of the
U.N. Those are decisions for our government to make.