HAS THE UNITED NATIONS WILTED OR WAS IT ALWAYS AN INVALID ?
ARE THEY SUPER POWER SUBORDINATES?
WERE THEY EVER ANY DIFFERENT?
IT IS NO FORUM FOR THE IGNORED RIGHTS OF US TAMILS !
BY WAKELEY PAUL
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
inequities of the General Assembly and Security Council. We would
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
U.N. Those are decisions for our government to make.