8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

1/6

8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

2/6

New World Order and UNPARMINDER S. BHOGAL*

[Mainstream: Vol.XXX, No. - 51, October 10, 1992]

The dramatic event in the first year of the final decade of the twentieth

century brought in massive changes in the global power out look. With the hastened collapse ofthe Soviet Union, the order of the post-World War II era was destroyed. The resulting power

vaccum initiated the shaping of a new world order. The world, currently with a unipolar outlook,

may finally take a certainly different shape a more power equation at the global level. How ever,the changed power equation even if transitory in nature has already started manifesting itself in

the form of changes in the conduct of the dynamics of international relations at different levels

all over the world. The world, relieved of the tearing strains of the bipolar Cold War and thebalance of terror is now experiencing a strong unilateral, unidirectional pull of remaining unit-

veto superpower. The Gulf war, sanctions against Libya, pressure for NPT and the events at the

recent Rio earth summit are some of the significant pointers in this regard. This trend is being

glaringly reflected in the working of major international bodies, more so the UN. The United

Nations, with its effective appeal to the world community, has often suffered manoeuvrings atthe hands of the powers-that-be, to acquire de jure legitimacy of their global power designs. It is

once again passing through the same process in the context of the tremendously changed globalpower equation.

The process began with the Gulf war itself when the United State led an impatient military

action against Iraq, defying all the UN codes of conduct, cutting short its procedures, and without

waiting for the yields of the economic embargo against Iraq. The Security Council was, in a wayhiacked by the US to promote its own policy perspectives in the world region, on the pretext of

librating Kuwait. The facts speak for themselves. Despite the prominent role, before the war

began the Security Council did not meet for four weeks of coalition bombing because of the USinsistence only. And because of third World majority in the General Assembly, it was not

convened, despite the fact that the crisis was the most severe in the resent t history and couldhave degenerated into another world war.

How the UN is being influenced by the changing international order, and how in return,still remains a guessing option. However the developments still now have been depressing. There

has been the emergence of the expended northern bloc in the UN, dominated by USA. It is

justifiably being felt, especially in the developing world that the US is on its way to promote itsown version of a new world order. The UN Security Council summit meeting held in January

this year in New York was a more obvious signal of such a trend in this regard. The one day

meeting attended by heads of governments of member-countries of Security Council, wasostensibly called a John major, the then chairman, put it tacitly, to belonging to the developing

world went unheeded, as the final draft adopted at the summit shows. The major demand of these

leaders was regarding the need for democratization of the UN, especially its Security Council. It

was held by themthat in the context of disintegration of the soviet bloc, the council has becomea sort of independent decision- making body and does not truly represent the larger UN General

assembly. There was a proposal by India, Japan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe for more democratic

Security Council by changing its composition by providing permanent membership to Japan and

one from the larger but unrepresented Afro-Asian bloc. However, this was ignored by permanentmembers.

*Assistant Professor, Post Graduate Department of Political Science, Arya College Ludhiana

8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

3/6

On the contrary, the West, led by Britain and the US were for more powers of theexisting Council. They advocated strongly for an increased UN role in the cases of human rights

violation and nuclear proliferation. The developing world reacted to these proposals by

maintaining that Security Council was merely a representative body of General Assembly,assigned to maintain international peace and security, and that it had no mandate to monitor

human rights and other such matters. It was further argued by the Third World representatives

that the perception and constrain of human rights and widely at variance with the western

concept, and that the NPT is iniquitous and unfair to the developing countries.The powerful West sought to introduce and subsequently implement the doctrine of

preventive diplomacy, an increased interventionist role to the UN troops. This, they held is

necessary to prevent crises from becoming wars. Despite strong opposition from thedeveloping countries the final draft remain uncompromising on nuclear proliferation issue

though the human rights issue was toned down considerably the issue of implementing

preventive diplomacy in ambiguous terms by asking to broaden the scope of UN intervention to

impose peace. The final draft took no notice of the demand for democratizing the organisation itcalled upon the Secretary General to analyze and recommended the ways to strengthen and make

more efficient, the frame work and provisions of the Charter and the capacity of the UN for

preventive diplomacy for peace making and peace-keeping, with the provisions of the Charter.

And the Secretary General, Dr Boutros Ghali, has very recently submitted his analysisand recommendations in the form of fifty page report called Agenda for peace. The detailedreport contains many suggestions to improve the efficiency of the UN. Some of the significant

suggestions include increased cooperation with the regional bodies for peace maintaining anddevelopmental efforts, endeavors to remove the cause of tension by assisting in rehabilitating the

conflict- displaced people and by rebuilding the war torn economies. Another position

recommendation is regarding the increase in the working capital fund of UN to the level of 250million dollars, and a general principal that the level of fund should be about 25pescent of the

annual assessment under the regular budget these recommendations are regarding the

improvements in the general efficiency of the UNs working. A large part of the report, however

revolves around the improvement of the UN peace-keeping operations and implementation of

new Western concept of the preventive diplomacy such recommendations include theestablishment of a permanent UN force, deployment of the UN forces in the intra-state conflicts

and the powers to the Security Council for unilateral deployment of the troops in an internationalconflict situation for preventive measures. These recommendations could have far-reaching

impact on the scope and the very look of the UN, if implemented, given the nature of the

transition in the international order, established by the January summit meeting of the SecurityCouncil.

The report suggest the establishment of a temporary peace keeping fund to the tune of 50

million dollars, to meet the initial expenses of the peace-keeping operations, pending the receipt

of assessed contributions. It goes on for the establishment of a permanent contributory UN force

to respond to out right aggression, imminent or actual. Apart from the conventional peace-

keeping role Dr Ghali seeks to deploy such a force for the preventive, interventionist combatpurpose also. In conve3ntional peace-keeping, the UN peace-keeping missions are sent at the

requests of the party or parties to the conflict. However, the new suggested option for preventivedeployment, envisages powers to the Security Council to interven directly as well. The message

is clear, the Security Council thereby will be independent in deciding as to which conflict

situation requires preventive deployment and action, and which does not. This will be anenormous power to the international body which is oligarchic in nature and which is not immune

from the pulls and pressure of power at the global level. The report further goes on to

8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

4/6

recommend the deployment of such a force in intastate conflicts at the request of the partiesconcerned or the government.

How much manoeuvrability and Security

Council will have in deciding for such a deployment can be ascertained from the fact that manytimes government lose legitimacy and resort to violent and unconstitutional means to maintain

themselves in power. This problem is very common in many of the developing countries where

there are frequent insurgency problems and civil wars; there are several centers of power, each

one claiming to the government. In such cases, it will be Security Council which willarbitrarily decide as to which is their government. This will be a very dangerous option, as itwill amount to direct interference in international affairs of such state, where upon the Security

Council and not the popular mandate will become the source of legitimacy for the governments.This will aggravate the internal conflicts and lead to anarchic situations, rather than solving the

problems. Such enormous powers and there implications will undermine the basic nature of

contact by which the UN came into being The united nation is not a world government and there

is no evident desire by its members to have it evolve greater supernationality. In the words of ProHarold J. Laski, The history of the League of Nations and United Nations is the record ofnothing so much as a conflict between the new principle of in dependence and its consequences

and the old principle of sovereignty. What it implies is that the subtle balance between the

internationalism and the national sovereignty, upon which the world body survives upon, is to bedisturbed the least and that too the unavoidable last.

Further, the scope of such permanent force itself exhibits its limitations and leaves no doubt

about the nature of the issues of its development. Dr Ghai says, The force may perhaps never besufficiently large or well enough equipped to deal with the threat from the major army, equipped

with sophisticated weapons. They would be useful, however, in meeting any threat posed by

military forces of a lesser order. Apparently, the force will not be capable ofuse against majorpower, threatening international peace and security. The only possible use is, therefore, against

smaller powers.

However, the conflicts which are capable of destroying international peace and security are

the once involving major powers. If a force is capable of countering the threat of such powers,

then how much purpose does it fulfill? Moreover, how much threat does the conflict betweensmaller power suppose to the international peace and security, if not aided, abetted and

intervened into by the major powers it is true that true that smaller powers, most of them beingdeveloping countries have more frequency of conflicts among themselves but these conflicts are

essentially of local nature, when not supported by a major power, directly or indirectly such local

conflicts do not pose any serious threat to international peace and can be easily contained andresolved through the general, moral and material sanctions and pressures available with the UN.

At the most, a conventional peace-keeping mission may be required. And for all such purposes

there is no justification for having a permanent UN force with all its financial liabilities.

Moreover, the report suggests no probable way of containing the whims and fancies of the majorpowers. And above all as has already been said, such forces under the Security Council which, in

tern, is open to manocuvrings by the great powers, are more likely to be used to serve their endsrather than serving any useful purpose though the Secretary General has put forward the idea of

reviving the moribund military staff committee to control the activities of these forces so as tomake their expected use more meaningful and beyond the influence of any single power. The

proposal, originally from President Mitterand of France, came during the January summit during

the council, is regarding the augmentation of the council and expending its role beyond theplanning of the peace-keeping missions. Currently under Article 47 of the Charter, the military

staff committee consisting of the senior officers of the five permanent members of the Security

8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

5/6

Council has only an advisory role and no command or control liabilities. The proposal is worthwhile and the active military staff committee with the control of UN forces under it, can surely

reduce the chances of avoidable and misdirected uses of such forces up to some extent. But there

are no possibilities of this proposal being accepted and implemented given the nature of powerpolitics in the Council. The UK_US lobby is all out to get a free hand in running its affairs

unilaterally. It is aptly noted in a comment in New York Times. Once the military staff isoperating, it will become harder for the USA to win Security Council endorsement for another

military operation under its national command and without any United Nations over sight.The proposals regarding the formation of a permanent UN force are also in violation to the

letter and spirit of the Charter of the UN. Dr Ghali in his report has sought these powers to the

Security Council in consonance with the chapter VII of the Charter. However, the Chapter VII isnot to be seen in isolation. It is the part of Charter as a whole and it has to be taken in that spirit

and convention only the UN Charter primarily envisages for itself a role of a global instrument of

a conflict management and conflict resolution through negotiations, voluntary adjudicative and

moral methods and means. It further seeks to create those conditions in the world whereby thefactors like hunger, underdevelopment, disease, etc, responsible for conflict situations may be

eliminated altogether. It, no doubt, does allow the use of force for maintaining international

peace and security but it is to be the least and at the last and through consensus and

accountability only.It seeks to establish and organization based upon the principal of sovereign equality of all

its members, to save the succeeding generation from the scourge of war. Though the charter is

pragmatic enough to recognize the special interests of the major powers by providing for themthe permanent membership of the security council and the power of veto, however, it nowhere in

envisages for these powers the role of self style international policemen. It clearly lays down that

in discharging these duties (Of maintaining international peace and security) the Security

Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principals of the United NationsTherefore, all these attempts by the powers that be in the Security Council to usurp more

draconian powers are against the spirit and letter of the UN Charter.

Further, the proposal to constitute a permanent UN force does not violate the spirit and

convention of the Article 43 of the Charter, which lays down the general procedure for theconstitution for UN forces when required Article 43 by its very nature does not envisage the

creation of permanent UN force. It only wishes the member-states to make available the armed

assistance to the Security Council, On its call and in accordance with special arrangement orarrangements. The provision in article seems to be vague in this regard but there are time-tested

conventions, which clearly establish, that the UN forces has to be constituted on adhoc basisonly, as and when the situation demanded. Another significant convention has been that the

armed forces only those countries are involved, to whom the parties to conflict has no objection.

And while constituting this force, the particular conflict situation where such a force is to be

deployed, is always considered. Strategic factors like graphic, climate, the type of force required,and the easy access etc, are given due consideration. These are now time-tested practices evolved

out of usage and had led to smooth conduct of peace-keeping mission. As a result thereof, thepeace-keeping processes have been credible tools of conciliatory and residuary diplomacy,

effectivity use of conflict management and resolution all over the world. Currently the UNpeace-keeping missions are actively deployed in 19 different conflict situations. A permanent

force will jeopardise the UN peace-keeping diplomacy of all these conveniences and ready

acceptibility. The creditability of the UN will crode and its conciliatory mechanism will getweakened rather than strengthened, as claimed by the Secretary General in his report.

8/9/2019 New World Order and UN

6/6

The effectivity of the UN arises out of its benevolent image and its aura of a globalplatform of universal peace and not out of the fear of its military might as is being attempted to

establish. It is true that the Charter does allow the use of force to the Security Council; however,

it also lays down, that it has to be as a last resort and after all other non-military meansprescribed in Article 41have failed to yield results. The use of force is not to be coercive but only

disciplinary and only to augment the negotiative capabilities of the UN. The doctrine of

Preventive diplomacy. Finds no scope under the Charter in original. As has been seen it is a

dangerous option in the absence of an effective democratic control, from which the SecurityCouncil amply suffers; it has more scopes of subjective abuse than objective use.

The United Nations is built on the principle of sovereign equality of states, big or small, but

world has not yet used to democracy at international level this is one of main causes ofdisillusionment with the denigration of the UN in some of the richest and more powerful

countries who are now trying to advocate the idea of a stronger UN the powerful indeed find it

difficult to resist the urge to gain by pressure rather than persuasion. Experience has shown that

uncalled for use of power through the UN has often proved futile and has only aggravated thecrises the long run, directly or indirectly. Such a use of has generally been undemocratic, beyond

the actual and effective control of the UN and with latent objectives, not conforming to the

Charter. The Korean crisis is a point in case, and the Gulf may soon be on its way to become its

modern version.It is true that the UN requires certain changes and readjustments in its working, however,

these changes must not account to the sabotage of the Charter itself. Its universal outlook and

character must be maintained. It is the only forum where the representatives of all the nations ofthe world can meet to sort out problems that cross out national boundaries and develop rules of

international law and morality.

The UN, whatever its failures, weaknesses and miss uses may have been, still remain thehope and cosines of the world. It has helped in preventing, containing and stopping many

conflicts. It has saved many lives and safeguarded independence countries. Its 17 independent

specialized agencies and 14 major programmes and funds embrace almost every man in every

corner of the globe. Of there work in social and scientific service, one can say with justice that

had it not been performed the world would be poorer and uglier place; and were it to cease, itwould have to be invented again.

Today there is an even greater need to save UN from the perversions of power andundemocratic attitudes, especially those emerging very recently. It must be realize that the

problem is not with the UN, it is rather with the attitude of the governments towards international

cooperation. For its successful working and potent solutions to the problems of internationalpeace, there is an immediate need to shift its emphasis from power to cooperation, and its

working from oligarchic to democratic decision-making, as suggested by Prime Minister P.V.

Narasimha Rao in the January summit meeting of the Security Council. In the words of late Dag

Hammarskjold If properly used, the UN cane serve diplomacy of reconciliation better than otherinstruments available to the member-states. All the varied interests and aspirations of the world

meet in its precincts, upon the common grounds of Charter. The greatest need today is to bluntthe edges of conflict among the nations, not sharpen them. (UN Secretary Generals annual

report, 1957).