The
UN is not the Scapegoat of this
American Election Contest
By JONATHAN
POWER
February 16, 2000
LONDON - During the last U.S. presidential election
campaign, the Republican candidate, Bob Dole, used to say
in almost every speech he made, referring to the
controversy over the use of American soldiers in UN
operations: "I will be in charge of making that decision
not Boooutros Booooutros Ghali" The school boy effort to
ridicule the UN Secretary-General always raised a laugh
and helped charge President Bill Clinton's campaign to
have the able Egyptian diplomat stand down. Xenophobia
was regarded by both contestants as an electoral
asset.
Set against the campaign of four years ago, the tenor
of the current one seems to be on another plane. The
cheap shot at the UN is out. In its place, if not
enthusiasm, there is at least a passive recognition of
its value. It would, perhaps, be going too far to surmise
the candidates realize that for all America's almighty
economic strength and the political and military power
that is its corollary, it simply cannot be sure of
getting its way when it chooses to act. Often enough it
can, but there are many occasions when it needs at least
to give the impression it is prepared to work with
others, if it is to demonstrate the moral conviction
essential to political, even military, success.
This is part of it. But another part is that, of late,
the UN appears to be having some success. Not least, it
has won the attention and engagement of big time U.S.
politicians who, in recent years, have ignored it when
they weren't spurning it. First, vice-president Al Gore
decided to personally launch a U.S. sponsored month of
Security Council concentration on Africa. Then he handed
the baton to Richard Holbrooke, the high profile, former
Bosnia trouble-shooter, and now the current U.S.
Ambassador to the UN, who makes little secret of his
desire to be Secretary of State should Gore win the
election. Holbrooke in turn invited Congress'
arch-enemy-in-chief of the UN, Jesse Helms, to address
the Security Council. Although it had a predictable tone
to it- "No UN institutions, not the Security Council, nor
the Yugoslavia [War Crimes] tribunal, not a
future International Criminal Court, is competent to
judge the foreign policy and national security decisions
of the U.S."- the meeting at least ended on a civilised
note, promising to continue the dialogue.
Gore and Holbrooke's single-mindedness has breathed
life into last year's moribund attempt to deploy 500 UN
cease-fire monitors, supported and protected by 5,000
armed UN soldiers, into the war-ridden Congo. It may well
be too small a contingent to do the job, yet it is large
enough to be a scapegoat for what has a good chance of
going wrong. Nevertheless, it marks (along with decision
on intervention in East Timor late last year) a 180
degree turn around in American policy. The U.S. has stood
apart from peacekeeping operations ever since Clinton's
decision to cut and run from the U.S. participation in a
UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia in 1993. His
reaction to the death of 18 American Rangers in what in
fact was a U.S. authorized and commanded operation was to
put the whole blame publicly on the UN, who had not even
been forewarned of what was intended and who were reduced
to trying to save the besieged American soldiers.
It always helps to change an attitude if the last
experience has been a success. So it is with the UN which
is now basking in the shine from its operation in East
Timor. The first reaction to the UN-sponsored referendum
on whether or not the territory should remain part of
Indonesia seemed to be a decision by the high command of
the Indonesian army to punish the populace by any means
at hand (for which atrocity the ex-chief of the army,
General Wiranto, has now paid the penalty this week of
losing his cabinet seat). It was the quick deployment of
UN authorized peace enforcement troops, led by Australia,
which quickly stabilized the situation. Early estimates
of massive and widespread deaths were revised steadily
downwards. On Tuesday this week the enforcement troops
handed over to a UN peacekeeping force led by the
Philippines. And now in East Timor the mood, once so sour
and angry, is upbeat and largely positive. The task of
restoring the economy and preparing it for independence
is going better than anyone dared hope.
Perhaps western politicians in particular will now
begin to recall the other UN successes of recent years to
offset their hitherto unhealthy fascination with failure.
Namibia, Mozambique and Cambodia, all countries beset by
horrifying continuous warfare, in the latter country the
worst since the Second World War, have all found peace
through UN mediation and have now been put back on their
feet. (In the case of Namibia and Mozambique impressively
so- the latter is presently the fastest growing economy
in the world.)
Conflict mediation carried out by the UN, on many
occasions by the Secretary General himself, is often
unsung. A conflict prevented is not news, and often not
even a provable historical episode.
But if the UN is to continue forward with this renewed
momentum much hangs on the outcome of the U.S.
presidential election and its present campaign. During
the Clinton presidency the UN was wrongly denigrated and
it was cruelly sabotaged, as on the occasion of its urge
to head off the Rwanda genocide, which Bill Clinton later
apologized for. If there now looks to be a turn for the
better, recent history teaches us to cross our fingers.
Still, compared with this time four years ago, it is
almost the difference between night and day.
Note for editor: 1) Copyright JONATHAN POWER 2)
dateline London 3) I can be reached by phone on +44 385
351172 or by e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
Tell a friend about this article
Send to:
From:
Message and your name
Copyright © 2000 By JONATHAN POWER
I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172 and
e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
 
|