U.N. and a symbolic peace prize

THE UNITED NATIONS is the only global forum for waging `peace', albeit in imperfect ways that the changing moods and methods of its powerful states will allow. So, as the joint recipients of this year's Nobel Peace Prize, the U.N. and its high profile Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, can hardly pause to celebrate. America's ongoing aerial and missile attacks on Afghanistan, whatever be the extent of international consensus in support of the stated anti-terror aims of the U.S., bring the abundant symbolism of the award for the U.N. into some poignant focus. More often than not since its formation in the dismal context of World War II, the U.N. has found itself marginalised on a wide variety of international security issues. Therefore, the effusive sentiments about peace, so eloquently expressed in the award citation, will raise questions about how far the U.N. can really manage to avoid being eclipsed again as the world's multilateral architect of peace and geopolitical stability. In a related sense, the Norwegian Nobel Committee's choice of the U.N. itself for the latest award may well set the stage for a vigorous new debate on the substantive question of a fair reform of the truly global organisation and more particularly its Security Council.

In brief celebratory remarks, Mr. Annan has noted with satisfaction how the Security Council recently passed a binding resolution in regard to some definitive steps that each of the U.N.'s 189 members should take in order to rid the world of the politics of terrorism. At one level, the resolution, which also reaffirmed the U.N. Charter's principle of individual and collective self-defence, has been utilised by the U.S. as a diplomatic springboard for its current military operations in Afghanistan. On a different but relevant plane, significant sections of the international community are already concerned about the long-term implications of the current U.S.' offensive in Afghanistan and about Washington's stated plans to consider military action against other states that might be promoting terrorism outside their own borders. Not surprisingly Mr. Annan has, while answering questions, made a pointed reference to these concerns in his comments on the new qualitative challenges that the U.N. system would be expected to address in the glow of the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, the existing international paradigm of power will undeniably determine the U.N.'s immediate course of action in respect of such concerns. Yet, a quick and equitable reform of the Security Council can credibly enhance the U.N.'s capabilities in pursuit of its peace agenda. A fair evaluation of the veto rights of the permanent members of the Security Council will also be required to heighten the confidence of the U.N. members in their only `representative' caucus on questions of peace and stability.

The latest award should set the U.N. on a major trail of introspection across the whole gamut of its operations including those concerning humanitarian and economic matters. Surely, several agencies of the U.N. system had already won the Nobel Peace Prize and a former Secretary-General was similarly honoured even if only posthumously. For the U.N., the present moment of celebration is, however, tinged with the inevitable trauma of a poor member-country controlled by a defiant, inhuman group being pounded by two powerful states. Yet, the evolving international coalition against terrorism is the most significant multilateral task force to take shape since the Gulf War-related alliance in the early 1990s within the ambit but not under the explicit auspices of the U.N. Mr. Annan, who has often championed the rights of the poor and weak states, seems eager to promote a relatively non-controversial coalition such as the emerging anti- terror alliance.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Sharing of distress