Crisis of U.N.O.

CRISIS OF U.N.O.
DR. R. C. MAJUMDAR
Former Vice-Chancellor, Decca University

Whenever I think of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), I am reminded of the quaint Sanskrit phrase smasana-vairagya. It means the spirit of renunciation which overwhelms a man when watching the dead body of a near and dear one being burnt to ashes in the burning ghat. In most cases that spirit passes away sooner or later, and the man resumes his normal life, until he is faced again with a similar scene. The U. N. O. and its predecessor, the League of Nations, owe their origin to similar feelings of nations. The devastation and massacre, on a huge and unprecedented scale, during the First World War gave a rude shock to mankind and President Wilson’s description of it, as the war to end all wars, found a ready response in all quarters. The result was the League of Nations, the covenant of which was incorporated as a part of the Peace Treaties which ended thegreat war. Its main object was to eliminate war as a means of settling disputes, though many other humanitarian ideals were added to it. But the smasana-vairagyadid not last long. The U.S.A. was the first to disown its President’s pet creation, and though for some time it managed to carryon, the nations of the world resumed their old world diplomacy, based on pacts and alliances, without much thought of the great organisation which was supposed to replace them. Big powers likeJapan and Germany abandoned the League, which came to an ignoble end, amid the dins and bustles of the Second World War. This time the holocaust was on a still greater scale, and men’s minds once more were seized by the spirit of Smasana-vairagya. When the three victorious chiefs, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, met at Yalta in February, 1945, and agreed to destroy German power root and branch, the vindictive spirit could not smother altogether that of smasana-vairagyaand they decided to summon a conference at San Francisco to draw up a charter for a new League of Nations dedicated to world unity and peace.

The proposal was enthusiastically acclaimed bya war-weary world and 50 nations sent their representatives to the San Francisco Conference which met on 25th April, 1945. After nine weeks of debate and discussion, the Conference drew up on 26th June, 1945, the Charter of the United Nations intended to serve as the framework of a new World Organisation. Its fundamental objects were: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations on the basis of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; to achieve international cooperation in the handling of world-wide economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems; and to promote respect for human rights, dignity and freedom. In order to achieve these ends, every member State accepted the principle of the sovereign equality of large and small States, the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means, to refrain from the use or threat of force in their international dealings, and the duty to assist in any United Nations action against a violating State.

Before we discuss how far these admirable ideals were carried into practice, we must note the new trend of thought and idealism which this organisation introduced into the contemporary world. It gave rise to a new faith and hope in the heart of mankind. The faith grew that perpetual peace is possible and almost within reach, provided there is good-will among people and they are ready to make sacrifice for the common good of mankind. War ceased to be looked upon as the ultimate resort of diplomacy, and instead of force, and resort to war, the nations chalked out a new line based on mediation, negotiation and conciliation, to settle disputes among nations. There was also the idea of one world, in which the weakness of one State is the weakness of all, and the strength of one–not the military strength but the real strength, the economic and social strength, the happiness of the people–is indirectly the strength of all.

These ideas which have been emphasised again and again during nearly 20 years by the precept and example of the UNO will ever remain the priceless heritage of mankind. Whatever we may think of the measure of success achieved by the UNO and whatever may be its future, there is no doubt that humanitarianism, in the true sense of the word, has got a fillip from this great organisation such as it had ever received before from any other source.

More than 19 years have passed since the foundation of the UNO, and it is time to take stock of what it has actually done to fulfill the great mission it undertook. To make a proper appraisal of this we must divide the activities of the UNO into two broad divisions–political and non-political. Its achievements on the non-political side are summed up as follows at the end of the first decade of its existence:

“More than 90 countries and territories, by 1954, had received technical and economic assistance under UN auspices. Thousands of experts representing scores of nationalities were sent to aid the less-highly developed areas and thousands of fellowships were granted to residents of these areas for study in the industrialised countries. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) provided equipment, supplies, and information that by 1953 had benefited 60 million children in 70 countries. More than 1500 million dollars had been loaned to 28 countries by 1953 through the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The International Monetary Fund helped many countries maintain relatively stable currencies and improve their banking policies. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) helped increase farm, fishery, and forest productivity throughout the world, while the World Health Organisation (WHO) fought disease on all fronts, distributed vast quantities of penicillin and other drugs (particularly to tropical areas) and fostered effective international quarantine regulations. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) undertook to reduce illiteracy, provide vocational education where needed, and stimulate the world-wide exchange of new knowledge.” More recently this body has turned its attention to a programme of publications which would promote better understanding and good-will among the different peoples of the world; in particular, by emphasizing the contributions to the cultural and scientific development of mankind made by different nations in different ages and countries. An International Commission appointed by the UNESCO has recently brought out the first of the projected six-volume history of mankind written on a new plan, in which emphasis will be laid not on wars and conquests which now fill the pages of history, but on the peaceful activities which have enabled mankind to make steady progress from a primitive lifeto the present state of culture. There are also the International Labour Organisation and the International Court of Justice which have rendered splendid service to improve the status of labourers and settle disputes among nations without an appeal to arms.

The UNO has been steadily expanding these activities. In 1958 more than fifty million mothers and children in 97 countries and territories derived benefits from the UNICEF which received an allotment of more than 60 million dollars for its operations in Asia alone. 51 million dollars were budgetted for technical assistance in 1964.

This record of humanitarian work is merely illustrative and by no means exhaustive and activities in these and other fields increased with progress of time. Although, great as they are, they may not be very much when compared with the immensity of the work that still remains to be done, still nobody can deny that so far as the non-political work is concerned the UNO has not disappointed the expectant world. But the same thing cannot be said of its political work. In this field the high hopes of bringing peace and security to the whole world were dashed to the ground almost from the very beginning. The UNO Charter was based on the assumption that the war-time agreement between the three great powers, U.S.A., Russia and Great Britain would continue and give it strength and vitality. But it was not long before Russia not only held aloof but was the centre of a rival grouping in the UNO. The atmosphere of 1945 in which originated the UNO Charter was entirely changed within less than five years, and this accentuated another great danger to world peace and security. The Charter was signed on 26th June, 1945 and on 6th August of that year the first atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima in Japan. It was a terrible warning of the new age which the world had to face. The UNO was alive to the great danger and made repeated attempts to control the manufacture of atom bombs, but unfortunately the opposition of Russia frustrated all attempts to make this world organisation for peace and security the sole custodian of this dangerous weapon. The result has been an unchecked growth of more and more deadly weapons of destruction on a massive scale, and the peace and security of the world depend today not so much on the UNO but on the U.S.A. and Russia who had the monopoly of this deadly weapon until towards the end of October, 1964, China succeeded in manufacturing it. The shadow cast by this great danger is lengthening every day.

But apart from this the record of the UNO as the guarantor of peace and security of the world has not been very satisfactory. It is true that its interference has been effective in many cases of a minor nature, but its failure is also writ large in its short history of 19 years.

The first great anomaly which marked the organisation of the UNO was the exclusion of China which was a permanent member of the Security Council. When in 1949, the Communist Government was established in China and Chiang Kai-shek was forced to take refuge in the island of Formosa under the protection of U.S.A., the membership of UNO was granted to this refugee colony of less than 9 million people and not to the People’s Republic of China which exercised authority over the 650 million inhabitants of the mainland of China. This farce of recognizing the homeless wanderer Chiang as the true representative of China is enacted every year and there is no doubt that the mainland of China has been kept out of the UNO merely by the pressure brought to bear upon the other nations by the U.S.A. The most populous nation in the world is not a member of the UNO and a satellite of U.S.A. functions as a permanent member of the Security Council. Its effect was soon perceived. Russia boycotted the UNO as a protest and its indirect, and China’s direct, support led to a civil war in Korea. Korea is still divided into a communist and a democratic zone as protege, respectively, of China and U.S.A. The attitude of Russia and the Communist bloc in the whole long-drawn affair in Korea marked the clear division of UNO into two separate blocs.

UNO has also failed to evolve a peaceful, orderly political evolution of Palestine by reconciling the rival claims of the Arabs and the Israelites. India’s complaint against Pakistan’s aggression against Kashmir has been on the agenda of the UNO for more than fifteen years and there seems to be no chance of any solution, though Pakistan has been declared by it to be an aggressor. India’s complaint against Africa’s policy of apartheid also has met with a similar fate.

The main reason of these and other failures is that the Smasana-vairagyaof the nations has passed away and the old ideas of power politics among the big nations have regained their sway. But Russia alone cannot be accused of this charge. England and France violated the letter and spirit of the UNO Charter when they wantonly invaded Egypt and bombed its cities in 1956. Our own country–India–also cannot be absolved from this charge. When China destroyed the independence and civilisation of Tibet, India did not lift her little finger and did not even support the motion to bring the case of Tibet before the UNO. The will-o’-the-wisp of Chinese alliance made India remain a mute witness of this crime against humanity and thereby sacrifice the fundamental principles for which the UNO stood. Thus the UNO, instead of being an impartial organisation for securing peace and justice for all nations, has become more or less a handy instrument for serving national interests in the name of internationalism. When Indian forces occupied Goa and drove away the foreign Portuguese Government, the big Powers of the West would have passed a vote of censure and probably taken other steps against India, but for the veto of Russia.

Unpaid Assessment: In some cases concerning the weaker nations, the UNO has achieved some success in preventing war, only because of conflicting interests of bigger powers divided in their sympathy to the rival states. The UNO Emergency Force succeeded in preventing open collision between Israel and Egypt. Far more arduous was the undertaking of the UNO to establish peace between the rival warring factions in Congo, just freed from the yoke of Belgium. The UNO took upon itself the responsibility for maintaining peace and security without infringing any internal function of the government. The magnitude of the task will be apparent from the fact that in September 1960, 16,400 officers and soldiers, supplied by 28 nations, were engaged in Congo operations. But this expensive military operation could not be carried on because some nations who were against it for self-interest, but were in a minority in the General Assembly which sanctioned the military operations, adopted a more dubious method to nullify the efforts of the UNO, by withholding the payment of subscriptions due from them according to the rules of the UNO. This point is not so simple as it appears but has a long history behind it.

The UNO exercises its power through a General Assembly and the Security Council. Each member State is a member of the Assembly and has only one vote, irrespective of its size or population. Decisions on important questions require a two-thirds vote; others only a simple majority. It normally meets only once a year. The Security Council functions as its Executive body and is always in session. It has five permanent members (China, a France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States) and six non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly. Decisions of the Council require seven votes, viz., the votes of all the five permanent members and two others. This means that the dissent of a single permanent member means the rejection of the proposal. This clause was inserted because it was thought just that all the big five powers, on whom would rest the chief burden of carrying through any military operations, must be in accord before any arduous work was undertaken and, considering the relation between the five great powers in 1945 when the Charter was drawn up, it was hoped that they would always act in accord on all major questions of policy. But the break of Russia as the head of the communist bloc from the other four permanent members, created an altogether new situation. This was realised by the frequent use of the veto power by Russia to thwart all the proposals which were not to the liking of the communist bloc. The gravity of this danger was realised when the Security Council decided to take military action against North Korean forces who had invaded South Korea, as mentioned above. At that time Russia had boycotted the Council by way of protest against the selection of Formosa rather than China as the permanent member of the Security Council, Everybody realised that had Russia been present in the Council, she would have used her veto to thwart the project of sending military aid to South Korea, and the whole Korea overrun by the communist forces of North Korea, would have turned ‘Red’. To prevent such a catastrophe in the future, powers were given to the veto-less and more representative General Assembly to deal with similar situations. This meant that Russia would no longer be able to prevent any such action by its veto if the General Assembly decides to take it. Russia naturally grew furious and found a way out of the difficulty. The Congo military operations were sanctioned by the General Assembly and not the Security Council, and Russia maintained that she was not bound to pay her share of the expenses for an undertaking to which she was opposed. This introduced a dangerous principle. The example of Russia was followed by other nations, with the result that by 1963, 60 nations owed UNO 106 million dollars in unpaid assessment, largely though not wholly, for the support of peace-keeping operations. (According to latest reports U.S.A. has also decided not to pay its usual 40 per cent contribution–Ed.) At the present moment the UNO is faced with this grave crisis. It has brought into prominence another grave danger, viz., the division of the UNO into groups as in a rigid party system, so that it is not very difficult to forecast the casting of votes on any important question. This takes away the very foundation on which the UNO was built and which alone can guarantee that sense of equity and justice without which such an international organisation cannot survive as a useful institution.