Editorial: US support crucial to UN's survival

Opinion

South Africa's wartime leader, Jan Smuts, is credited with writing the preamble to the United Nations Charter. That introduction written in 1945 includes undertakings by member nations to practise toleration, maintain international peace and security, promote economic and social advancement, and to ensure that armed force is not used "save in the common interest". As an instrument to keep peace in the world, the organisation may not be perfect but it has been more successful than the League of Nations which, like the UN, arose from the ashes of a disastrous world war. It differs from the league in one other important respect. The United States is a member.

The league failed because major countries - not only the United States but also Germany and Japan - were not signatories. It lacked the power to enforce its will. The United Nations has no such limitation and its 191 members include every major nation. Its collective powers of economic sanction and active peacekeeping can be potent weapons. The potency, however, lies in the word "collective". Anything that erodes the common resolve of member nations diminishes the effectiveness of the organisation.

Hence the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, is at pains to ensure that the diplomatic wheels are well-oiled. Squeaks from unhappy members can interrupt the smooth running of the organisation. And when the United States made not a squeak but a loud graunching sound over the running of the UN in retribution for the world body's failure to support the invasion of Iraq, Mr Annan decided that the United Nations should have not a lube but a major overhaul. He ordered a high-powered report on making the UN more effective.

The review panel's recommendations include some measures that even worldly-wise international observers say are worthwhile and probably overdue. They will not be judged effective, however, unless the United States expresses its approval. And Washington's approval of the United Nations seems to be predicated on the world body's willingness to endorse US foreign policy. It is at this point that the rest of the world should begin to feel uncomfortable.

President Bush's ire descended on the UN because it would not immediately place its imprimatur on his invasion plans for Iraq. In other words, for standing by the resolve in its preamble and requiring proof that it would be condoning the use of armed force "in the common interest".

The President's reaction was symptomatic of a growing American impression that, post 9-11, it knows what is best for the world in these dangerous times. It is an attitude that the United States would do well to shed. The United Nations will survive only if there is a common resolve by all of its members to make it work. It will falter, then die, if its most powerful member forces it to submit to a thinly disguised hegemony. That would be no more in the long-term interests of the United States than of all other nations.

If nothing else, the process through which United Nations resolutions must travel provides time for analysis and sober reflection. It exposes proposals to various viewpoints and, while members may be motivated by self-interest, reaching collective agreement has a leavening effect. Those checks and balances are, however, hostage to the veto powers of Security Council permanent members. While the UN may not have reached first base without the veto right, the restraint is also the body's greatest impediment to global consensus.

Now, however, the Bush Administration by its trenchant criticism of the world organisation introduces a new form of veto. If it withdraws its support from the UN it will signal a death as certain as that of the League of Nations. That demise would be brought about because there are times when the United States' involvement is vital and its power is indispensable. Equally, there are times when world opinion is indispensable to Washington. It should remember that.