The Hindu : The U.N. stays relevant

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Feb 22, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

The U.N. stays relevant

By Chinmaya R.Gharekhan

On the issue of Iraq, concessions on both sides of the Atlantic would have to be worked out and that again means buying some time, which the U.N. can credibly provide.

ONE OF the most positive fallouts of the crisis over Iraq has been the enormous increase in the prestige and credibility of the United Nations. The harder the American administration has worked to make it irrelevant, the more relevant the U.N. has become, not just for the peoples of the world, but also for most Governments, including even some such as Tony Blair's, which are having to face enormous pressure of public opinion for apparently uncritically supporting the Bush administration in its confrontation with Saddam Hussein.

Strange as it may sound, at least a part of the credit for restoring the U.N.'s image should go to the U.S. President, George W. Bush, loath as he might be to accept it, since it was he who decided to go the U.N. route after berating it in his September speech to the General Assembly. Had he, at that time, taken the decision to go ahead unilaterally, he would have faced less flak than what he would if he were to take a unilateral approach today. Mr. Bush did so against his own better judgment and against the advice of many of his conservative advisers. Since, from all accounts, it was the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who persuaded the President to take the matter to the Security Council, and since Mr. Powell has not succeeded so far in getting even a simple majority of nine members in support of the Anglo-American position, not to mention all the veto powers, it would be understandable if Mr. Bush were to be rather unhappy with Mr. Powell. It would be in keeping with politics, and not only in America, if those who favoured not getting mixed up with the U.N. from the beginning were to tell their boss: we had told you so. Should Mr. Powell not manage to cobble together the needed majority in the Security Council by the time it next meets on the Iraq issue, it should surprise no one if America were to have a new Secretary of State.

The person who most deserves credit for the heightened credibility of the U.N. is Hans Blix, head of the U.N. Monitoring, Observation and Verification Commission for Iraq (along with El Baradei of the IAEA). The reason is simple. In his report to the Council on February 14, Mr. Blix said things that all those who had already planned the street rallies in 600 cities across the world would have liked him to say and did not say things which would have made life difficult for them. This is not to suggest for a moment that Mr. Blix was influenced by such considerations, but he surely was not unaware of the momentous nature of his testimony. By the same token, if Mr. Blix had given a report, based strictly on objective criteria, which would have been more favourable to the American position, he would have invited upon himself the most obnoxious adverse comments. Apart from loss of personal prestige, he would have, for no fault of his, harmed the credibility of the U.N., perhaps beyond repair.

Such is the nature of the game. It seems that Mr. Blix came under a lot of pressure from members of the U.S. Government before he finalised his report. Sometimes, the reality on the ground simply does not leave room for flexible or creative reporting! All said and done, Mr. Blix has done the U.N. and his own country, Sweden, proud.

All reports indicate that for various reasons including the deployment of the needed forces, the phase of the moon, etc., the Americans will not be ready to initiate military operations against Iraq for a few more weeks, until about the second week of March. There should, therefore, be not much problem for the U.S. to wait for another meeting of the Council on March 14 before deciding on its next step. It is unlikely that Mr. Blix and company can come up with a report in a month's time which would be at complete variance with what they said on February 14.

The possibility, however, cannot be altogether excluded. In any case, it would give time to Mr. Powell, as also Mr. Bush, to work on their allies and to persuade them to fall in line. A delay of a few weeks would also buy the American administration some goodwill from its allies as well as the international community at large. Logic suggests, therefore, that there would be no war until the middle of March. Governments do, at times, behave logically.

Will the Americans have their way and succeed in getting the second resolution of their choice? Normally, there should not be much doubt on this score. This time, however, some of their allies, especially France and Germany, have taken a very tough position against them. The French President has even ticked off, in no uncertain terms, the new candidate countries ready to join the E.U. for prematurely lining up with the U.S. The rift in the NATO over preparations for Turkey's defence has been papered over but is bound to leave a bitter aftertaste for both sides. On balance, it should still be possible for the Americans to bring around their allies. It is highly unlikely that France and others will persist in their opposition to the breaking point on an issue of such overriding importance to the U.S.

The Americans, for their part, will also have to give something to their allies, whom the present dispensation in Washington has done its best to alienate, since it will be equally difficult for them to ignore their public opinion. In other words, on the issue of Iraq, concessions on both sides of the Atlantic would have to be worked out and that again means buying some time, which the U.N. can credibly provide.

For India, this hot potato needs to be handled with pragmatism. There is no need to take a highly so-called principled position and be overly critical of the American position at this stage, nor would it be justifiable to express support for the Americans in what they are planning to do. Concern for the long-suffering Iraqi people, call for strict Iraqi compliance with its disarmament obligations in conformity with Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter and preference for any action under the instrumentality of the U.N. are the right notes to strike. There is, however, one issue on which India should not hesitate to speak up. It has been widely reported in the media that the Americans are contemplating the use of nuclear weapons against Iraq in the event of a war. They are talking of using the so-called nuclear `bunker busters'.

These nukes would be used presumably if the Americans had intelligence that Mr. Hussein had taken shelter in a bunker. It may be recalled that the U.S. had bombed a civilian shelter during the Gulf War, which had resulted in a large number of casualties. A nuclear weapon, however tactical and smart, is bound to cause death and destruction which cannot be justified even if Mr. Hussein were to perish in the process. Granted that the passion and commitment of previous years are lacking in India's call for a nuclear-free world today.

Nonetheless, on an issue of such enormous importance, silence is not a desirable policy. It would also be in keeping with the present Government's position on non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states, and would do no harm to its domestic image, for it to express unambiguous disapproval of any plans for the use of any kind of nukes in a war against Iraq.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Dangerously partisan

Dubai and deportation

The U.N. stays relevant

Cultural globalisation

Privacy in the time of celebrity

France scores a diplomatic coup

India's forward policy