The Hindu : Unilateralism and the U.N.

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 01, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Unilateralism and the U.N.

By R. Kannan

Unilateralism will increasingly be looked upon as an aberration but recourse to the U.N. needs to be demonstrably more beneficial.

IN HIS opening remarks to the United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, flagged the idea that the Security Council would grant "early authorisation of coercive measures" against "certain type of threats" — like terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. He suggested a discussion on the criteria for such action.

It is clear that the September 11 terrorist attack and the Anglo-American armed action in Iraq have prompted Mr. Annan. The Council has dealt with varying success with disputant states trying to wage war or use force against one another. States adhering to an international system are responsive to a multilateral order — and more often than not will respond to ostracism and economic sanctions. If not, the use of internationally sanctioned corrective action, as in the case of Korea or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, helped roll back conquest by force. Terrorists, unlike states, are above and beyond any order. As individuals or in groups they remain ready to harm humanity. Mr. Annan noted that this has led some to challenge the long-held understanding that the right to respond against "broader threats" needed the imprimatur of the United Nations. The difficulty, he said, was that some felt they could not wait until the Security Council reached agreement and so decided to act unilaterally. In prescribing a remedy for their concerns the Secretary-General suggested that the Council consider early action.

Early action by the Council, if done, would certainly mitigate unilateralism but not eliminate it once and for all. For unilateralism itself is not new. The context is. A number of member-states, at one time or another, have chosen the unilateral trajectory, arguably judging that multilateralism would be cumbersome, time consuming and less advantageous to their interest.

The framers of the U.N. Charter envisaged the Security Council would respond promptly to any threat to international peace and security. Thus the Council is in continual session ready to meet at the shortest notice. The Council convenes usually when a crisis erupts or if there is a breach of peace. Macedonia, a breakaway Yugoslav Republic, where the Council dispatched a preventive peacekeeping force remains an exception. As long as nations are unequal in wealth or power, or differ on ideological, cultural, and/or religious grounds, their relationships are bound to be uneven and motivated by self-interest. Convergence of views or concerted action will be limited to areas where interests are equally felt or it is a matter of necessity. Thus there is much cooperation on issues such as meteorology or child soldiers or human trafficking or demining. However, even such a manifestly all-embracing concern as the environment can become divisive — with the developed countries' often emphasising conservation when their developing counterparts stress on development. The trick is finding and keeping the middle ground.

Unlike the threat to the ecology, the threat of terrorism is more immediate and visceral. Thus when states perceive a threat to their national security or their civil order, some are prone to resort to pre-emptive but unilateral remedies of questionable legitimacy. Nine votes, including that of the Permanent Five need to be corralled for Council action. This proved elusive on Iraq. The Council mulled the Iraqi issue for months. Those seeking authorisation for forceful measures argued that the end of the road had been reached. Others disagreed. Disagreements are thus unlikely to go away by early action alone. Earlier in 1999, the Council was divided on whether to use punitive force against Slobodan Milosevic.

In the end, NATO action was launched outside the Charter. Many commentators despaired that the international system had suffered a major blow. The action against Iraq this year resurrected those concerns again.

Member-states are not yet fully confident that recourse to the United Nations is superior to unilateral or allied actions. To offer that level of assurance, the organisation has to have the power not only to mediate but also be able to enforce its decisions. But this is unlikely simply because nations will resist any semblance of international government. Now Mr. Annan has proposed a step further — for the Council to act and to do so before it is late.

Time alone can tell if the U.N. will heed Mr. Annan's exhortation. The organisation's record has been that its usefulness and stature have been high whenever member-states stood by it. Unlike its ill-fated predecessor, the League of Nations, the U.N. has proven resilient against the vagaries of a still evolving multilateral order.

The U.N. has learnt from the League's inadequacies. Its sanctions, for instance, are not discretionary but plainly enforceable. Nevertheless, it has had its own debilitating periods in its 58-year course. It was unable to do much about Vietnam or Afghanistan until the parties desired a U.N. role. Yet the tide against unilateralism shows how the U.N. has grown in expectation and stature.

Unilateralism will increasingly be looked upon as an aberration but recourse to the U.N. needs to be demonstrably more beneficial.

(The writer heads civil affairs with the U.N. peacekeeping force in Cyprus. These views are his own.)

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Warning signals for Congress

Meaning of Asia Cup Triumph

After the quarrel in New York

Unilateralism and the U.N.

Talking peace and preparing for war?