Print

Mail

wiki links

Editorial: Expectations of peace

The UN and its Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, have won this year's Nobel Peace Prize. Certainly, the UN has made a major contribution in world affairs in the post-Cold War era. However, this award was apparently given much less for what the UN has accomplished in the past than expectations about its future role, especially in the fight over international terrorism.

The UN continues to sit on the sidelines a month after the Sept. 11 attack on the US, and days after the US counter-attack. Despite Annan's hope of making the UN the center of a "global coalition against terrorism," US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have stolen the entire show.

Responding to an inquiry about what the UN has done in response to the Sept. 11 attack, Annan replied that within 24 hours the UN Security Council and General Assembly both passed resolutions condemning the attack. But besides those two resolutions which only paid lip-service to fighting terrorism, the UN has neither been able to broker peace talks nor even produce a definition of the "terrorism" it condemned.

It is ironic and almost sad that the UN has its hands tied in the aftermath of an attack that took place only blocks away from its New York headquarters and while the General Assembly was convening there. The disrespect and disregard for the UN demonstrated in the attack may explain in part the UN's inability or disinclination to play an active role.

For those who think the UN is playing a passive role solely because it has been out-muscled by the US, think again. The UN has had its shares of stumbles in situations where the US did not actively intervene. For example, the UN was blamed for inaction during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda that resulted in the massacre of 800,000 people, and during the bloodletting in Bosnia.

The UN knows too well the roots of its problems, namely that it can only do what its members will allow it to do. More exactly, the UN can only do what a handful of countries will allow it to do. This is because it depends on that handful to provide most of its peace-keeping troops and financial backing. For example, while the UN successfully intervened to bring about the independence of East Timor, it was unable to stop the resulting bloodshed until Australia sent troops to impose a ceasefire. As for the high-profile UN humanitarian aid to Afghanistan refugees during the past 10 years, 80 percent comes from the US. This year alone, the US has provided US$1.67 billion of the US$4.72 billion in funding needed by the UN.

For the same reason, the UN has been unwilling and unable to treat Taiwan fairly. Despite this country's sovereignty, the UN this year shut its door in Taiwan's face for the ninth time. This is because China's permanent seat on the Security Council has made it one of those handful of countries able to call the shots at the UN.

In talking about the situation between Israel and Palestine, Annan said in 1999, "It sometimes seems as if the United Nations serves all the world's people but one; the Jews."

He forgot to mention that the UN does not serve the Taiwanese.

If the UN is to truly live up to the high expectations implied in its Nobel prize, it must learn from the lessons of Afghanistan. That is, it must intervene actively before confrontation breaks out. With China's increasing military presence in Asia, the Taiwan Strait is a time bomb waiting to explode. Deal with the situation before it is too late.
This story has been viewed 2520 times.