<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><EM><STRONG>Far from upholding the principles of
sovereignty and non-intervention enshrined in the UN Charter, the UN has been
revived with a mandate that legitimises the exact opposite - military
intervention by major powers and the creation of neo-colonial
orders.</STRONG></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<TABLE border=0 cellPadding=0 cellSpacing=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD colSpan=2><FONT size=2><SPAN class=DocumentType>Article</SPAN><IMG
height=1 src="http://www.spiked-online.com/images/pixel.gif"
width=15><SPAN class=datestrip>18 October 2001</SPAN></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=bottom>
<TD vAlign=top>
<P><FONT size=2><SPAN class=DocumentTitle>Ripping up the
Charter</SPAN></FONT></P></TD></TR>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD colSpan=2><FONT size=2><SPAN class=ReadOn>by </SPAN><A
class=Author>David Chandler</A></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR
class=NetscapeDummy>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>On 12 October the United Nations and its
secretary-general Kofi Annan were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the
first time. But the UN that is being celebrated today should not be
confused with the international body set up in 1945 to promote peace and
international law.<BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>On the same day that Annan was praised for
'being pre-eminent in bringing new life to the UN', US president George W
Bush gave the UN a big vote of confidence by proposing it should 'take
over the so-called nation-building or stabilisation of a future
government' following the military mission in Afghanistan. But when Mary
Robinson, the UN's commissioner for human rights, called for a halt to the
US air strikes on Afghanistan so that aid could be delivered to two
million 'desperate' trapped civilians, her words fell on deaf ears. <BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>The praise and awards heaped on the UN for
promoting world peace sat uneasily with its incapacity to influence
America's war against one of the most wretched nations on Earth. <BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>Annan's reward for bringing 'new life' to the
UN reflects the fact that the UN has a new set of priorities today. The
institution that was founded on the pledge to 'save succeeding generations
from the scourge of war' is no more. This was clear when the USA and the
UK bypassed the international legal framework of the UN Charter and the UN
security council's role in providing legal sanction for military action
against Afghanistan, and just went ahead with their war (following on from
the precedent set in 1999, when the USA and NATO refused to accept any UN
limitations on unilateral military action against Kosovo).<BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>This humbling of the UN was followed by
further humiliation, when it was powerless to protest about a US cruise
missile that killed four UN civilians in Afghanistan on the night of 8
October. The UN workers had been guarding the offices of the main Afghan
mine clearance agency two miles outside Kabul and were not near any
obvious Taliban military target - and the UN had passed the coordinates of
the offices to the US military a fortnight earlier. After the bomb hit,
the head of the UN office in Pakistan could only plea with the Pentagon
'to distinguish between combatants and those innocent civilians who do not
bear arms'. <BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>The international community established the
UN Charter as the world's international constitution, in an attempt to
find a process for the peaceful settlement of international disputes,
outlawing the unilateral use of force. But the old UN, with its formal
role of overseeing the Charter, no longer exists - and it seems unlikely
that the status of the UN Charter, based on respect for equal rights of
sovereignty, can be revived.<BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>Sovereign equality, the Charter's central
principal, reflects the fact that the UN was set up at a time (1945)
shaped by struggle against colonial rule and the discrediting of the ideas
of imperial mission and Western superiority. But such a framework does not
fit with the political reality of today's unipolar world under US
dominance, where states are no longer considered to have equal political
legitimacy if their political, economic or military policies don't fit in
with the West's agenda.<BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>Just as the end of the old UN reflects the
end of an international order based on the formal respect of
self-government and sovereign equality, so the new UN reflects a very
different ordering of international affairs today. The UN international
administrations experimented with in Kosovo and East Timor - along with
the less formalised international protectorate in Bosnia-Herzegovina -
have laid the basis for a new epoch of unequal sovereignty and
'neo-colonial' administrations.<BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>As UK foreign secretary Jack Straw revealed
at a press conference on 11 October, the USA and Britain have been using
UN auspices to sponsor discussions on replacing the Taliban government
since November 2000. These 'track two' discussions with representatives
from the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, Pakistan, Russia and Iran
considered the make-up of a possible alternative government, more
accountable to the Western powers than the uncooperative Taliban. <BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>That the UN can now be used as a forum to
discuss Western pressure on the governments of other states and possible
intervention in other states' domestic affairs indicates how far it has
moved from its formal commitments to the Charter.<BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>The appointment of Lakhdar Brahimi, the
former foreign minister of Algeria, as the UN's chief envoy to Afghanistan
symbolises the UN's new interventionist role. Brahimi headed the UN panel
that produced a major policy report in summer 2000 on the new role of the
UN in peace operations - which argued that, rather than acting as a
neutral force that monitors ceasefires and lets the different parties to a
conflict negotiate their own way forward, the UN should do much more.<BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>Brahimi argued that the UN should see peace
as 'more than just the absence of war', and that peace operations should
take on the more political task of governance, or 'nation-building' (1).
The proposed role of UN-run 'transitional administrations' should include,
'but not be limited to', legal and penal reform, police restructuring,
improving respect for human rights, democratic development, fighting
corruption, awareness-raising about HIV/AIDS, and teaching conflict
resolution.<BR class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>The UN is being encouraged to play this
nation-building role in what remains of Afghanistan when the bombing ends.
The US and UK governments have made it clear that their war aims include
the neo-colonial right to have a say in the constitution and policies of
the post-Taliban regime. But while London and Washington are happy to make
sweeping commitments to a future 'broad-based government' and a new
problem-solving, human rights-promoting post-war order in Afghanistan, it
is apparent that they will distance themselves from the social,
humanitarian and political mess brought about by their war. <BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD class=bodyp><FONT size=2>The UN has exchanged its role of preventing
'the scourge of war' for one of overseeing post-war nation-building. Far
from upholding the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention
enshrined in the UN Charter, the UN has been revived with a mandate that
legitimises the exact opposite - military intervention by major powers and
the creation of neo-colonial orders.<BR class=NetscapeDummy><BR
class=NetscapeDummy></FONT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>