<< back to table of contents

Comment: UN-stable? (by Hannah Renglich)

With the recent anniversary of the United Nations on October 24, it is time to sing the praises of the organization that takes responsibility for fixing so many of the troubles in the modern world.  However, it is apparent that not everyone around the world looks so favourably upon the UN.

To the citizens of Iraq, the UN has lost much of its credibility due to its lack of responsibility or action during the time of the US invasion.  In a breach of the UN Charter, the United States, a UN member state, held an unprovoked attack on Iraq, also a member state of the UN, followed by “the occupation of its territory, the removal of its government and the installation of a puppet leader employed by its own intelligent services.” 

With constant elusiveness as to a stance on the matter, the UN’s Secretary General, Kofi Annan, had waffled when asked if the United States should utilize military action against Iraq without UN Security Council authorization. In March 2003, Annan gave this vague response: “I have made it very clear that in my judgment, if the Council were to be able to manage this process successfully and muster the collective will to handle this operation, its own reputation and credibility would have been enhanced.  And I have also said if the action is to take place without the support of the council, its legitimacy will be questioned and the support for it will be diminished.” This elusiveness can be credited to the Secretary General’s devotion to the United Nations’ neutrality. It can be argued that if Annan had announced earlier that the US invasion of Iraq was ‘illegal’, it is possible that the US would not have granted the UN the small part it has hitherto played.  However, it is valid to note that in matters of devotion to the UN Charter and international law, neither the UN nor its chief executive ought to be neutral. 

Annan’s recent announcement to the BBC that the US invasion of Iraq was ‘illegal’ marked the end of the UN’s complacency on the matter; however, this attempt to correct past negligence will have to be followed with consequences for the illegal actions of the US.  For example, Iraq is still paying for the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein with monetary compensation being deducted from oil revenues. Logically, military action at this point is less than practical and therefore financial and legal responsibility must be impressed upon the US for the illegal war. It is the duty of the Secretary General to bring the infringement of the Charter to the Security Council, even though the US and the UK would veto any action to hold them accountable.

In 1994, the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) was held in Cairo, Egypt. Here, the Cairo Consensus was reached, embracing a people-centred, rights-based approach to population planning. “This approach assumes that if people’s needs for basic health care, including family planning and reproductive health services, and education are met, they will make decisions about childbearing and pursue economic and educational opportunities that are best for themselves, their family, their community, and the environment. Conversely, the Cairo Consensus reflects the reality that peoples’ health is intimately linked to their social, political, and economic status as well as their physical environment. Therefore, securing the highest standard of health for all requires a multifaceted approach that addresses each of these factors.”

The UN Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) is said to be violating the terms of the Cairo agreement, which determined that “no UN agency can be allowed to promote abortion”.  In 1983, the UNFPA awarded Communist China for having “implemented population policies on a massive scale”, in reference to the “one-child” policy which includes enforced sterilization, abortion, and female infanticide.  In addition, the UNFPA sent “Emergency Reproductive Health Kits” to Balkan Refugee camps.  These contained abortifacient pills, intrauterine devices, and “manual vacuum aspirators”, which are suction devices used to remove the fetus from the womb. Jacques Cousteau, in a publication of UNESCO, wrote “In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day.  It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”  

In January 1994, the Canadian Commander of UN forces in Rwanda, Romeo Dallaire, sent word to New York warning of the Rwandan Hutu chauvinist government’s impending genocide against the Tutsi minority and anti-tribalist Hutus.  Proposing to raid a weapons stockpile in order to avoid the arming of Hutu militias, Dallaire was met with the order by the head of UN peacekeeping operations, Kofi Annan, telling him not to take action and not to protect his informant.  In the following three months, almost 1 million Rwandans were slaughtered.

Beginning with the death of the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana on April 6^th 1994 in a plane crash, the UN Assistance Mission to Rwanda (UNAMIR) was deployed throughout Rwanda to attempt to forge peace between the Hutus and the Tutsis.  Unfortunately, immediately following the crash, forces of the Hutu-dominated government began to wipe out minority Tutsis and Hutu moderates and instead of expanding peacekeeping forces in Rwanda, the UN Security Council reduced them by approximately 90%. UNAMIR forces helped to evacuate 4,000 foreigners from Rwanda in the early days of killings, however they did not intervene when the Tutsis were being attacked and did not attempt to help Tutsis find places of greater safety than their homes. Annan later admitted that “the world had failed Rwanda at that time of evil” but accepted the idea that the violence resulted from “chaos” and ethnic divisions within Rwandan society.

To the credit of the United Nations, an independent 3-member panel with full access to all materials has been chosen to investigate the UN’s response to the Rwanda genocide.  In this way, the UN has demonstrated that they are willing to make amends by studying their weaknesses.  Hopefully, these progressive steps will help to prevent such complacency for future global issues, as shown in the above cases.  With its global responsibility, the UN espouses the self-consciousness necessary to overcome judgment errors and past mistakes, without which it’s actions and ideals could not be upheld.

Sources

Abu Nimah, Hasan, and Ali Abunimah. “Signs of life at the UN?” The International News. 23 September 2003. 2 November 2004. <http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2004-daily/23-09-2004/oped/o5.htm>.

Dixon, Norm. “UN ignored Rwanda genocide warnings.” 2 November 2004. <http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1998/318/318p23.htm>.

“The United Nations Wants to Decide if Your Baby Lives.” Get US Out! of the United Nations. 2 November 2004. <http://www.getusout.org/abortion/>.

“UN probes its part in Rwanda genocide.” ReliefWeb. 28 June 1999. 2 November 2004. <http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/
acf02766df326f87c125679e005288e0?OpenDocument>.

“Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations. 2 November 2004. <http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html>.

“Vatican Cardinal Rips United Nations for Promoting Abortion.” Lifesite. 16 September 2004. 2 November 2004. <http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/sep/04091601.html>.

<< back to table of contents