The Hindu : Weakening multilateralism

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Sep 17, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

Weakening multilateralism

BY DELIVERING WHAT was virtually an ultimatum to the United Nations to deal swiftly with Iraq and its President, Saddam Hussein, and on terms broadly set by his administration, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, has done a disservice to the global institution and the cause of multilateralism. Mr. Bush did make a token concession to multilateralism by bringing the issue for discussions before the world body and by accepting, as a preliminary, that the U.N. Security Council could focus on the ways by which Iraq could be made to accede to the consensual demand for the resumption of arms inspections. However, the underlying theme in Mr. Bush's address to the U.N. General Assembly was that the rest of the global community must arrive at a decision on Iraq that was more or less in line with Washington's own prescriptions in its basic thrust. Mr. Bush has clarified in later remarks that his administration would treat the world body as being less than relevant if it failed to do so and that Washington would contemplate unilateral action if the U.N. faltered.

As a general proposition, it is no doubt true that the relevance of the U.N. would stand diminished if it repeatedly failed to implement its own decisions and Iraq has yet to fully comply with several aspects of the relevant Security Council resolutions. But the question in this instance is whether the issue of Iraqi non-compliance is of such pressing urgency that the U.N. must be rushed into a decision. Till the moment that Mr. Bush raised the issue at the General Assembly — and even since then — there were few besides Washington's most uncritical allies who thought that the eradication of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capability was an issue that cried out for immediate and concerted global action. The U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has pointed out that there was no susbstitute for the "unique legitimacy" provided by the U.N. when states decide to use force to deal with such broader threats to international peace and security. Mr. Annan could, however, have argued more forcefully that an issue must not merely be raised at the world forum but that it must also be seriously debated upon and a real consensus created before action was taken. In regard to the Iraq issue it would appear that the U.N. and most member-states are resigned to the inevitable rather than engage in a serious debate.

It is a reflection of their own helplessness that most world leaders have drawn so much relief from the fact that the U.S. administration has at least raised the issue before the world body instead of initiating unilateral action as it had threatened for some weeks now. Washington has hardly bothered to conceal that its true objective is to oust Mr. Hussein from power and completely recast the Iraqi regime. A fresh Security Council demand that Mr. Hussein permit the resumption of inspections, under terms and conditions that Baghdad will most probably not find acceptable, is to be merely the first phase of a staggered process that Washington is in the process of designing. For the world body to contemplate a change of the accredited Government of one of its member-states is a matter that requires solemn and considerable deliberation. Other Governments in the world need to voice their opinions more forcefully to create a more democratic and truly multilateral international order.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Weakening multilateralism

Containing violence

The Musharraf conundrum

U.S. attack on Iraq — at whose cost?

The Bar Council's strike call

Spiralling oil prices