The United Nations - sick doctor

Rasul Jumaly

“UN used out all of its resources, cannot perform its duties, and just turned into statistical agency, obediently stamping decisions «necessary» to powerful countries in this world, there are more discussions than real actions” - assessment of this kind are now frequently heard from the mouth of political scientists in the expert circles, and it is difficult not agree with them. There are already ideas to bury the world organization, establishing in its place new structure of security and cooperation. People ask themselves why not to replace it, but the question is also whether there will be enough guarantees in any way?

The United Nations emerged after World War II to replace compromised the League of Nations. Humanity has stood on the threshold of the new timing, qualitatively different model of international relations was emerging, this model was without the superiority of one race over another, colonial oppressions, and there was the demand for effective mechanisms to prevent disasters like the one which was provoked by the fascist Germany and its allies in the Axis. United Nations was supposed to play this role which was conceived as a universal body in dealing with issues of war and peace based on justice and respect for the sovereignty of its members.
In reality, however, everything went different way. The dominant position in the new structure was held by so-called «Big Three» - the Soviet Union, which came out of the war as military super power, America, whose influence in Europe and Asia has risen sharply, and aging England, which still had Great British Empire behind it. They have taken the responsibility to rebuild post-war peace and the redistribution of spheres of influence. It was them, who after the famous conference in Tehran in 1943, Dumbarton Oaks in 1944 and Yalta in 1945 entered UN Security Council with the rights of permanent members - a body that makes the core decision of regional and global scale.
As for the case of France and China, they entered the Security Council from the «back door». After the humiliating defeat from fascists and the occupation only authority and influence of Joseph Stalin, who needed to decrease the Anglo-Saxon influence, has allowed France to enter the elite club. China at the time of UN creation was not even represented neither as a sovereign state, nor the integrated territorial unit. It’s economic and military-technical, financial and any other - except for the demographic - potential in comparison with other giants based in UN was much less, moreover two opposing parties - Communist Party and nationalists - totally dependent on the help of their foreign patrons - the United States and the Soviet Union, respectively. Nevertheless, China entered the elite club. The idea to accept China to the Security Council belonged to Winston Churchill, who persuaded President Roosevelt to agree with it. Stalin, apparently expecting a good chance that his ally Mao Zedong will win the civil war, also had no meaning to object candidacy of China.
Unfortunately discriminatory principle in the formulation and adoption of important decisions within the walls of the UN was founded from the original establishment. It is enough to say that Security Council resolutions are binding for all, moreover any of the five permanent Security Council members has veto power in the event if any decision might harm its interests.
Roughly the same principle is used for distributing privileges in the possession of nuclear weapons, USA, Russia, as the legal successor of USSR, Britain, China and France have such privileges. They are a kind of «guarantors for global security». Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPNW) in this sense plays the role of the legal justification for the status quo. It also entitles «leading five» to stop ambitions of any country to acquire nuclear weapons.
Since the early 1990’s, when the U.S. emerged as the sole super-Power, and global system of checks and balances eroded, former relapses gradually become the norm. UN, in the words of some diplomats, turned into a “prostitute”, who pleases the strongest and who pays the most.
Pressuring through various channels, speculating on the sum of their donations (USA - the largest donor to the UN), Washington imposed a worldwide organization their own interpretation of certain issues, forced to promote resolutions favorable to them. Response attempts to carry out an independent policy were often simply ignored or were even opposed. In part, this is also related to the actual removal of former UN Secretary-General Egyptian Boutros Ghali and his replacement by a more manageable representative of Ghana, Kofi Annan.
As a result, the country that conducted inadequate foreign policy in terms of the White House has been in the UN doghouse, whether it was Cuba or Yugoslavia, Iraq or Syria, Libya and Palestine, Venezuela and Nicaragua, Lebanon or Iran. Over the heads of these regimes, which were included into «rogues», and «axis of evil» was immediately hang the sword in the form of international sanctions, economic blockades and other repressive measures. But even in those rare cases when Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook and other U.S. representatives at the headquarters of the UN could not «drag» their versions of the resolution, the White House was not particularly weighted down by views of the world community. It was the case during the occupation of Iraq in 2003. The above mentioned Kofi Annan did not even drop a word condemning unilateral action taken by the Anglo-Saxon military, bypassing the Security Council, and without a UN mandate. However, it has to be said that it was an aggression on the territory of a sovereign country, a full-fledged member of the organization.
This way we can observe break down of the old principles in the world order, and with it the UN as the whole. Nation-state structures of international relations are being heavily revised even though for long time it was considered unchangeable. In our eyes there is a transformation of the generally accepted principles such as respect for national sovereignty, the inviolability of territorial integrity, denial of individual countries or groups to use military force against others, instead we see right of the most powerful. There is a new rationale: “A separate state, which is unable to control terrorism on its own territory, thereby loses the usual advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone. Other governments, including the United States, have the right to interfere”.      
It is difficult not to agree with the analysts that believe if there were not US aggressions, for example, in Serbia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2002 or Iraq in 2003, Russia would have been unlikely to dare attacking Georgia in August 2008. Permissiveness «Jin» was released from the bars and for the first time it was done by the White House, Russia became the second, who is next? But what if one of the emerging powers will allow itself to use the military force against Kazakhstan? I say that this is quite scary prophecy.
In a meanwhile credibility of the UN is rapidly running out, in particular from the Third World countries, where universal organization is more and more often perceived as serving only the interests of the western World. Remarkably, instead moving towards UN, West often argues for replacement of the United Nations by «Big Eight». This excludes all other states from the decision-making process.
UN once called “the best invention of mankind in the twentieth century”; it brought up the hopes for civilized settlement of disputes between States, solving collective challenges together, in particular, natural and technological threats, international terrorism, religious extremism, national separatism, epidemics and other disasters, during 60-year history UN is more or less able to cope with its responsibilities. But times are changing. Tragedy is that “the best invention”, despite many countries’ attempt to strengthen its role by general reforms are not working, and new mechanisms have not yet been established. Hopefully there will not be the necessity to live through another world disaster before new organization would be established for protection of international law.