Online edition of Daily News

by Prof. C. Suriyakumaran
(Former Deputy Ex. Secy. & Regional Director Asia Pacific and UNEP Global Dir. Ed. Tr. and TA)

The Iraq blow up has brought to the fore as never before in recent times, the underlying crisis and relevance or irrelevance of the international structures for peace and development that we call the United Nations; and with it the role and function of the Secretary General himself.

In a charged atmosphere of drama and power play, involving in this instance as much the big countries one against the other, the rest of the world going through the motions through their rotating members in the Security Council of 'participants in the process', and the Secretary General in between the Iraq imbroglio was played out, to the point of unilateral extra-international organisational structured decision by two countries to go to war.

As seen, it was not an enviable role for the Secretary General; more so when he did not have the vantage of a bi-polar world balance, when he may have perhaps even played a decisive role.

We may leave aside the pretended importance of the General Assembly, in whose bosom rested the concept that, finally, it remained the only forum of last resort for all nations. In reality the General Assembly met year after year on "an agenda that was unlimited but whose implementation was not in its hands", with increasing frustration from year to year and parallel disillusionment or dissatisfaction.

UN Secretary General Koffi Annan (R) meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at United Nations headquarters in New York. Blair held talks with Annan at UN headquarters on pressing humanitarian issues arising from the war in Iraq. AFP

A major casualty in the present situation out of all these shortcomings was the failure of "the Concept of the Secretary General". The United Nations by charter is composed of the membership, the Security Council and the Secretary General. (Space does not permit going into the Economic and Social Council). In this triad, the Secretary General is the Secretariat and he carried the charter right 'to bring any matter which he thinks fit to the General Assembly or the Security Council', for attention. It is a highly visible and creative role that the Secretary General has. Except for perhaps Dag Hammarskjold and some phases of tenures of some Secretaries General they varied in practice indeed widely, "presiding without leading" and as the London Economist added some years ago, "never guilty of doing too late and never accused of doing too much". The central vital role of the Secretary General as the conscience and guardian of the membership of the United Nations except in rare instances, fell short of fulfilment for lack of will or circumstance.

One had the personal privilege of exchanging several communications with the present Secretary General, both during my United Nations tenure until recently and thereafter in many matters of global concern, I must say, with mutual appreciation and regard. The unique manner in which the present Iraq crisis has led up to the de facto abortion of the United Nations system has thrown open not only the sense of responsibilities of the leading membership of the Security Council but indeed of the Secretary General, who was only able to opine at the end that he would prepare his organisation now for the humanitarian programs ensuing the havoc of war, decided upon virtually above the heads within the UN system. The question arises whether the Secretary General, with all due personal respect, should not have resigned; and should not even now do so.

It is not simply out of pique; but as a measure of the undoubted position of the Secretary General, of the shock if one might wish to call it that, needs badly to be injected at this point for a future and better United Nations, and world system. In any event what type of UN structure may we then foresee to help with a world community that can be at peace with itself and may prosper socially, politically and economically?

* Perhaps the first place to start is for the UN itself i.e. the Secretariat, to look at its tremendous opportunity and need for rationalisation - more than in the conventional shifts and adjustments so far undertaken.

* One thinks there should be a "convention" if not a requirement, that the General Assembly's work may not be by-passed by the Security Council except under procedures which must be set down.

* Thirdly the Economic and Social Council which really has to be the counterpart of the Security Council must be invested with the fullest powers and must co-ordinate in its fields, across the entire UN 'system'.

* Fourthly, the Security Council veto by the 'Big Five' must, one thinks sooner or later be looked upon as applicable only to a 'Select List'.

* The fifth is that the Security Council must be expanded, not by some capricious inclusion of Japan or Germany or such thing - tomorrow others will want to be included - but one thinks rather by use of the concept of "Regional Groupings."

* Perhaps one should add to this, the privilege of a 'veto on Regional Issues' in the Security Council by the Regional Constituent Permanent Members of the Security Council.

* The Bretton Woods institutions have to be revitalised. We have a sorry system of drastic social degradation and economic counter-productivity by the World Bank system.

* The 'third leg' namely the WTO must at least infuse something of the 1945 ITO philosophy apart from far more understanding of developing countries in their 'development process'.

(Jettisoned by the Big Powers almost as soon as it was mooted under the Keynes and White Plans which established the World Bank system there was to be an International Trade Organisation (ITO) wherein the correction of the deficits and surpluses in international trade were to be the responsibility of the Surplus countries, and not vice versa, as now, on the Deficit countries),

* Finally, not least we think, everybody must pay up. The dues are not options, but compulsory-mandatory-payments!

Yet, if one may conclude, in the end if we had no UN then I think we would have invented one; and the apocalypse did take place and there was really no UN, still when somebody asked one, what was the symbol of international co-operation, I am sure they would say it was the United Nations!