Relevance of U.N.O.

Relevance of U.N.O.

          The tragic events in Iraq have proved the old proverb, "Might is right." The arrogant attitude of the USA has once again raised the controversy about the relevance of the UNO in the unipolar world. The USA blatantly by passed the UNO and attacked Iraq without seeking legitimacy for the invasion of Iraq. The world continued looking on the violation of the charter of UNO.
          The end of the cold war held a great promise for the United Nations. It was hoped that in a new political order UNO will play healthy and major role. The world will be a better place to live in. But what we got in turn disappointed all of us. The bombing of Somalia, Yugoslavia, Rwanda etc. by powerful nations was the disastrous performance of the UNO.
          The UNO is just a hand maid of a few world powers led by Uncle Sam. India is the second largest populous country and it accounts for one billion population of the total six billion population of the world. And yet it is not a member of Security Council. After dissolution of Soviet Russia, Russia was made automatically permanent member of security council. As a matter of fact, the role of the UNO in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq has been disappointing. The Security Council, responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, has faltered on every account. It has failed to check unlawful actions. It reacts only when disaster has already taken place. The Veto power enjoyed by five permanent members of security council is used only in their own national interests. There is no impartial functioning of the Security Council because it is incapable of taking effective steps. If major conflict among Nuclear powers has been averted, it is not because of the UNO. To set the matters right it was in their own interest not to engage in conflict.
          However, UNO has, by no means, lost its importance as the promoter of International values. In the field of human rights it has played a major role. Yet the violation of human rights is interpreted in the manner as it suits powerful nations. Financial institutions such as IMF and World Bank have done a lot by way of economic assistance to the poor and developing nations. At the same time they are used by the powerful nations in their own interest. They exercise their powers to withhold or grant financial assistance to the developing coun¬tries as it suits them. Right since Gulf war of 1991 the role of UNO has changed from peace keeping to peace enforcement, from non-intervention to humanitar¬ian intervention. No doubt it is an American attempt to dominate the world. The idea of humanitarian intervention has given rise to American hegemony. By this America can play the role of super cop.

          In a sum the erosion of credibility of the UNO as the guardian of world peace is distressing. But there is no alternative to the UNO. One has to admit that the UNO will prevail in the role of a global police—although a hand cuffed one.
          The attitude of America to UNO can be compared to that of Japan towards the League of nations in 1931. Instead of abiding by the decisions of the League of Nations to vacate Manchuria (China), Japan surrendered the membership of League of Nations and then it was followed by Germany and Italy. If USA does not respect world opinion, a day is not far off when the UNO might meet the fate of League of Nations.