7 May,
2003
THE
RELEVANCE OF THE UN
(Sputnik
Kilambi)
Hello and welcome to UNMIK on air with David Balham and
Sputnik Kilambi.
The successes and failures of UN peace building efforts have
triggered intense debate in the run-up to and since the Iraq war. Much of the
comment, especially across the Atlantic but also here in Kosovo, has been
adverse, focusing on UNMIK’s alleged failures, and hence its irrelevance in
post-conflict Iraq. Unmikistan is the
way one Kosovar journalist recently described the UN presence in Kosovo, adding
piously, that he wished the Iraqi people would be spared such an experience.
The fact of the matter though is that building the peace is
much more difficult than winning a war. Both in the Balkans and more recently
in Iraq, the victory by NATO troops or the Anglo-American military force was a
foregone conclusion. Rebuilding a post
war society however is another ball game – while security considerations remain
important, it takes political will and above all long term commitment for such
interventions to succeed.
The United Nations, argues
Mark Cedras, a frequent commentator on UN affairs, at the Bonn International
Centre for Conversion in Germany, is uniquely equipped to deal with such
contingencies, not least because it guarantees a longer-term focus. And to
those who say Kosovo would have been better off being a US protectorate rather
than a UN one, he has these words of caution.
Mark Cedras: The US essentially shies away
from intervening or establishing these sorts of systems in areas where it does
not have a direct interest. This was sort of still seen as a European sphere of
influence, not an area where the US should establish a longer term or more of
an intensive presenceso I think that the UN presence was something that just
fit, this is the best case scenario for this area.
Afghanistan is a case in point he says, the murderous
Taliban regime collapsed swiftly under the US onslaught in November 2001 and
Hamid Karzai was handpicked to be the new ruler. 5 billion dollars in
reconstruction aid was pledged by the international community, which also promised
a 10,000 strong international police force. The reality is that aid pledges
have not been redeemed, US attention is not as focused as it was 15 months
before, while apart from Kabul the capital, the rest of Afghanistan is largely
under the rule of the gun and of warlords.
Hamid Karzai: This is an area where the US does
not have a vested interest economically
and other aspects, so in terms of its not playing or giving a full effort in
order to establish a strong central government this is the same sort of
situation I’m sure would have occurred in Kosovo, which is why Afghanistan is
better served by having a UN run framework.
In fact, adds Cedras, a fair assessment of the UN’s
capabilities and shortcomings, would have included East Timor and Cambodia.
Both countries were devastated by years of conflict and genocidal policies, and
both are examples of UN intervention, which have by and large been successful.
Mark Cedras: East Timor, although on a
small scale has been looked at as extremely successful, in terms of security,
establishing a viable government and so on you seem to have now a period of UN
bashing to a certain degree, one of the things I would say is that there is
really a high degree of expectation from the UN, higher than for many other
multilateral organizations, which in a sense is also unfair to a certain
degree.
The UN is not without its shortcomings – but similar
criticism can be made of most big organizations. Moreover, the UN is also the
sum of its parts, including those nations that argue in favor of humanitarian
military intervention, most recently in Iraq.
More to the point, argues Cedras, the US military has no experience in
handling humanitarian action on the scale demanded by Iraq. The cost of US occupation
of Iraq will also be prohibitive, estimated at some 25 billion dollars per
year. And at some point, probably
sooner rather than later, Washington will inevitably turn to the UN for help.
Mark Cedras: Especially in the Middle East,
where you have a great deal of animosity and not a great deal of trust towards
the US, the United Nations is the only organization that can enter Iraq,
rebuild Iraq with legitimacy, the US is not really seen, primarily because of
its history in the area with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being a
neutral player so this is an ideal situation for the UN to take a dominant
role.
Had the UN not intervened, says Cedras, Kosovo would
probably have fallen under a US umbrella for a certain period of time, but for
how long before fatigue set in. US
resources are currently overstretched around the world, and it is more than
likely that Washington would have ended up looking to Europe to step in,
arguing that Kosovo is after all part of the European backyard. The recent
supplanting of NATO by the EU in Macedonia is a case in point. The credibility of the United Nations has
unfortunately been dented by the wrangling over Iraq, but like it or not, it is
the only global organization that can deal with situations like Kosovo or Iraq.
Mark Cedras: There is really nothing that can
replace it, however, I would caution that under today’s geopolitical
conditions, you couldn’t have an effective UN without US support, so this is
going to create a lot of problems. The UN has been successful in a number of
areas, Cambodia, east Timor, the UN is the best, the most capable institution
to intervene in certain situations.. I mean we have Iraq today, on a
humanitarian level UN agencies are best placed to enter Iraq and make a
difference immediately (edit) this still shows the relevancy of the United
Nations, it is still the only global forum for resolution of these conflicts.
In defense of the United Nations – those comments from Mark
Cedras, senior researcher at the Bonn International Centre for Conversion,
ending this edition of UNMIK ON AIR.