Role of the U.N. in a Dangerous World

by Khaled Al-Maeena

If you were to go by the harshness of the words used by the United States, you would think that the United Nations was the biggest threat to world peace. There is hardly a tragedy in the world that Washington has not blamed the world body for.

But the campaign appears to have annoyed all and not only foreign governments, but also a large segment of the American public.

In a recent poll, the world organization, despite Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s inept leadership as the secretary-general, has much stronger support in the United States than almost any other institution, including the Congress and the executive.

According to Madeleine Albright, the United States’ top U.N. diplomat, Boutros- Ghali should go, but a second Clinton administration would continue its strong support for the United Nations. Albright said that the decision to oppose Boutros-Ghali’s re-election for another term was irrevocable because, “although we appreciate what he’s done, a new leader is needed to take the United Nations into the 21st century.”

Also, Albright tried to avoid any direct criticism of Republican candidate Bob Dole’s views on foreign policy as she addressed several foreign visitors to the Democratic national convention in August.

Many U.S. politicians are taking delight in hitting at the United Nations. In his acceptance speech, Bob Dole, the Republican candidate for the presidential election, took a shot at the United Nations. The partisan audience clapped and cheered wildly at his extraneous remarks.

However, what Dole and others do not realize is that U.S. hostility toward the U.N. damages not only the world organization by making it look weak and arousing a cynical attitude toward it, but also affects the national interests of the United States. Nobody is talking about Boutros-Ghali whose hands are stained with the blood of innocent Bosnians.

However, the United Nations’ failure to play a decisive role in Bosnia was in part the failure of the West to transfer total responsibility of protecting Bosnian “safe” areas to the U.N. itself. No amount of words can describe the atrocities committed against Bosnians by the Serbs and Croats. Mass slaughter, daily bombings, rapes—all went on under the eyes of the United States and other “peacekeepers.” Nobody lifted a finger. Instead, those who wanted to help found their way blocked, their hands tied and their minds drugged with assurances of “help is at hand.” As the matters stand, now it is clear, Arabs and Muslims have always been victims of terror.

Mr. Morton Halpern, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, said the “failure in Bosnia was largely the failure of the major powers to know what they wanted to do.”

The West believes that any act against its selfish interests should be countered. The Europeans, especially Britain, dilly-dallied. The Clinton administration had a “flip-flop” policy others could not care in the least.

The failure in Bosnia, the helplessness of the French in Burundi and Rwanda, the failure to tackle other problems can all be blamed on the United Nations. However, it seems that the United States and the West have misrepresented U.N. activities all over the world to cover up their deficiencies including the inability of the United States to pay more than a billion dollars in arrears.

The United States knows very well how to use the United Nations to its own advantage. It did so in the Korean conflict. Again, it did so on other occasions to enforce unjust embargoes on other countries. Now it is trying to attack the U.N. because it feels that the U.N. is not toeing the line.

The world is now treading on dangerous grounds. The new world order has yet to offer a clearer vision. It is, therefore, important that the United Nations become a beacon of light, helping nations, big and small, to steer themselves to safety and, in the process, make ours a safer world.

Let us all hope and pray that nobody would allow the blood of the innocent to flow again in other Bosnias and Burundis.