Nov 2002

The United Nations: An Organ for World Democracy, or Imperial Hangover?

Since it's inception, the UN Security Council has more often than not been an agent of war rather than peace. Although seldom able to effectively intervene to enforce a just peace between warring nations, it has time and again, permitted the former colonial and imperial powers (such as Britain and the US) to wage war against weak and defenseless nations who have attempted to break out of the neo-colonial framework they were confined under.

Most recently, the UN security council "unanimously" voted to endorse a US-imposed "new inspection regime" on the beleaguered nation of Iraq. But was this vote a "democratic" reflection of the will of the people? Was this vote a "victory" for international concerns regarding weapons proliferation or a frightening triumph of how an unrelentingly coercive stand by the world's sole super-power led to an all-round surrender by the other nations of the world? Did the people of the planet wish for Bush and Blair to prevail?

First and foremost, it is imperative to combat the utter hypocrisy of the charges against Iraq concerning it's "weapons of mass destruction". Of all nations on the planet, no nation holds a larger arsenal of nuclear weapons than the US, and it is the only nation to have actually used them against civilian populations - not once, but twice - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and that too when it was abundantly clear that Japan was practically ready to surrender. Since then, the US has used a variety of weapons of mass destruction (including chemical weapons) against several small nations - (such as Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan and Yugoslavia). In several instances, it violated the Geneva Conventions by specifically targeting civilian areas and civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, bridges, power plants and sewage facilities. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, it even bombed the Chinese embassy, and damaged the embassies of several other nations. But to date, no nation has dared move a resolution against such crimes against humanity. The world's greatest user of weapons of mass destruction has faced no strictures whatsoever. Neither have any of it's partners in war (such as Britain, or France, or other NATO allies) been subject to any restrictions.

While it is true that the nations of the Middle East have not exactly been paragons of virtue, and there are many who wonder if the Iran-Iraq war couldn't have been avoided, it is worth recalling that the US cynically armed both the warring sides, and US's closest allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf kingdoms did little to stop the war. In those eight long years, the UN remained largely paralyzed, and took few useful steps in bringing that fratricidal war to an end. In all those years, the US and it's European allies seldom refrained from selling weapons in the region.

For the permanent members of the UN Security Council (who are in fact the world's largest possessors of nuclear weapons) to now be so concerned about the possibility of Iraq developing it's arsenal of weapons, especially after it has already suffered a decade of back-breaking sanctions is most disingenuous. For other representatives in the UN Security Council to go along with such intrusive inspections against Iraq is most deplorable, although not entirely surprising. It is as much a sign of grave weakness, as of moral and ethical surrender to a highly unfair and unjust world order.

But the actions of the non-permanent members of the Security Council cannot be seen in isolation of other realities. It is important to note that the UN Security Council is an utterly undemocratic body - five nations: the US, Great Britain, France, China and Russia hold permanent seats in the body and have the right to veto any resolution they don't like. All of these nations have something of an imperial past. Prior to the Bolshevik Revolution, Czarist Russia was an oppressor nation, as was pre-revolutionary China during the imperial reign of the Manchus (who extended China's boundaries to include territories such as Xinjiang in the North West, and Tibet in the South West). But the US, Britain and France held colonies world-wide and British social, economic and cultural exploitation of India was without any parallel in world history. France controlled much of Africa, and to this day retains the right to keep a military presence in many of it's former African colonies. And although the US has been able to keep it's own colonial history mostly under wraps, it now boasts of the largest network of off-shore military bases.

Although the Soviet Union and China entered the UN Security Council with a measure of popular support, that cannot be said for the US, Britain and France, whose presence in the Security Council owes entirely to their imperial might. And by and large, these former colonial powers continue to act in ways that is reflective of their imperial status. Particularly onerous has been the role of the US following the unraveling of the Soviet Union.

The US has routinely vetoed resolutions it has deemed inimical to it's "interests" (whether tactical or strategic), and rarely refrained from adopting a stridently vindictive stand against nations that have had the gumption to defy it. This has sent a very chilling message to other nations of the world, particularly to small nations that are economically beholden, or militarily dependant on one, (or more) of the veto-holding permanent members of the Council.

In such circumstances, a Security Council vote (even when it appears to be unanimous), is at best reflective of the attitude of the five permanent members. Amongst them, Russia and China have increasingly shown their inability to act independently of the US, especially when the US has been successful in getting it's way with the EU. Russia is now hugely indebted to the IMF, while China has embarked on a course of economic development that is inextricably linked to exports to the US, the EU and Japan, and this greatly circumscribes the options of the generally pro-business political elite that now runs the Chinese government under the aegis of the "Communist Party".

Under such circumstances, the only hope for the non-permanent members in the council is to either develop a strong and unyielding unity amongst themselves, or to hope for a split between the US and the EU so that it may cause France (and Russia and China) to successfully resist US and British pressures in the council. To some extent, this has indeed occurred, and in the present instance, it has held back the US and Britain from launching a war against Iraq right away. But France's endorsement of the recent resolution bodes ill for the future and the deathly shadow of a new war against the people of Iraq hangs menacingly before all peace-loving people on the planet.

Soon after the passage of the Security Council resolution against Iraq, spokespeople for the anti-war coalition in Britain expressed their rejection of the resolution, and German Television reported that 500,000 outraged citizens of Europe swarmed through the city of Florence where thousands of delegates to the World Social Forum had gathered to express their opposition to imperial war and coercive economic globalization. In the recent general elections in Germany, Social Democrats squeaked to victory mainly because of their opposition to a new war against Iraq. Opinion polls in Germany have repeatedly indicated enormous opposition to a new Iraq war - with some recent polls even suggesting that opposition may run as high as over 90%.

In France, two-thirds of those polled objected to France's endorsement or participation even if a war resolution were to be passed by the Security Council. In Britain, a series of polls have shown that those opposed to war outnumber war-supporters by a healthy margin. In recent months, Britain has seen unprecedented mobilizations against a new war. But in spite of the mass opposition to war, delegates to the Labor party's national convention shamelessly abdicated their duties to Labor's voters and supporters, and capitulated to their warmongering leader.

In the US, prior to the war vote, phone calls to offices of US Senators and the House of Representatives ran 5 to 1, or even 6 to 1, against war. Yet, only a fourth bothered to act on the demands of their constituents. Several Senators (such as California's Dianne Feinstein) gave the impression that they were opposed to war, yet, at the very last moment defied the sentiments of their constituents to vote with the War Resolution. Of course, it bears reminding that George Bush actually lost the popular vote in the last election, and was put into office by a narrow vote in the US Supreme Court amidst charges of vote tampering and electoral racism in Florida. Moreover, only a minority of US citizens even bother to vote - in the most recent elections (Nov 5, 2002), turnout was barely 40%.

Not only was the War Vote not reflective of the popular will, it took place with very little debate and under a barrage of pro-war propaganda from the mainstream media outlets. In any civilized democratic society, decisions that lead to war ought to involve unrestricted debate. But instead, anti-war voices have been systematically excluded, and the US political and media elite have attempted to sell the idea of a new Iraq war with utter disregard for the terrible cost of war that the people of Iraq will have to bear. Neither have ordinary tax-paying Americans been told of the real cost of the war and it's impact on their personal finances. US media pundits have willfully cast aside all concern for truth, justice or morality as they have trumpeted the march to war.

But without an unbiased examination of the facts, without calm and dispassionate inquiry into the necessity or fairness of a war - which nation can honestly claim to be "democratic" or "civilized"?

As the world faces the specter of a new war against a small and helpless nation that is in no position to threaten it's immediate neighbors, let alone the US, it is high time that all people of conscience find ways to combat the unrestrained might of the US imperial juggernaut.

In India, this will require combating all those who have been advancing the ludicrous suggestion that the US and India are "natural allies" because of their supposed "commitment to democracy". The US "commitment" to democracy has never been what it has been made out to be. At first, democratic rights were confined to White male property owners. Only after considerable struggle was suffrage extended to the broad masses, to women, and to African Americans. And today, there are significant number of American adults who don't even bother to register to vote. And of those who do register, often, less than half choose to exercise their right to vote. And this after candidates spend more money on elections than in any other country in the world. In the last election, Republicans and Democrats spent an all-time record of a billion dollars in a campaign where few candidates even mentioned the threat of war against Iraq. Only some small parties like the Greens (who polled around 5% in several California races) have tried to challenge the hegemony of the two main parties.

Not only is the two-party system in the US much more beholden to high finance than India's multi-party federal democracy, it has shown no genuine concern for the expansion of democratic rights in the rest of the world. US foreign policy has been geared towards propping up hated and unpopular dictators throughout the world. It's policies in the oil-rich Middle East, and in Pakistan have been especially duplicitous and against the interests of not only the people of India, but of most people in the South Asian region. Thus even as some self-styled "US experts" in India have pushed for a one-sided, humbling alliance with the US, many Indians have expressed reservations, even outrage and hatred for US and British machinations in the region and the world. (See this analysis of Indo-US relations derived from a compilation of Internet readers' comments concerning the US role in the subcontinent)

The more the US dictates terms in the world arena, the more urgent it will become for Indians and citizens of other nations to press their political representatives to confront US might and power. Although some amongst the Indian intelligentsia believe that India should have a seat in an expanded Security Council, this may not be the best approach to dilute US power in the UN. When the USSR and China won their seats as permanent members of the Security Council, they had built their credentials by first demonstrating their independence from the US. In recent years, India's foreign policy has largely echoed that of Russia, and whenever Russia has retreated from a confrontation with the US, the Indian government has generally followed suit. For instance, in the case of Iraq, the Indian position was initially opposed to war and called for the lifting of sanctions against Iraq. But once Russia had indicated that it might support a new inspections regime, India likewise weakened it's position.

Indian presence in the Security Council would do little good if India lacked the backbone to stand up to US pressure. But in recent years, no Indian government has demonstrated the ability to do so consistently. Occasionally, the Indian position has had some bark, but rarely has their been any bite in the Indian position. More often than not, the Indian government has either relented without even a fight, or else it has retreated hastily the moment the US has ratcheted up the pressure and got most EU nations and Japan to side with it.

The real solution to the lack of democracy in the UN is to get rid of the Security Council entirely, or certainly it's permanent members, and the right of any nation to cast a veto. Not only must real power reside with the UN General Assembly, there must also be new provisions that give adequate representation to countries with large populations such as India, Brazil and Indonesia. Not only must the UN move in a direction that provides each world citizen with comparable representation, but there must also be checks and balances to limit superpower arm-twisting and manipulation. For instance, votes could be allotted to nations in proportion to their population, but nations without legitimate or representative governments could be given fewer votes so as to encourage the formation of representative governments. In large nations (such as India) with highly diverse population groups, each federal region could be given separate representation. In addition, a democratized UN could also call for re-distributive economic policies that rectified the grave injustices of the colonial era.

To prevent bullying by warmongering super-powers, all war votes could first require a secret ballot (so that national representatives could vote according to the will and conscience of their respective constituents without fear of dire consequences). Only if a secret ballot were to pass, could there then be a second vote - but this time an open vote - so that the nations who felt there was overwhelming justification or moral imperative for war took public responsibility for their stand.

But at the present time, votes in the Security Council are often caste under duress - under the threat of negative consequences and retaliation by the US, and consequently are not a legitimate expression of world democracy. Resolutions passed by the General Assembly - (which are often more reflective of the will of the people) are summarily ignored by the USA. Thus as things stand, the UN is simply another organ for the promotion of neo-colonial imperial interests, not very different from the IMF or WTO, cynically manipulated by the world's big powers, in particular the US.

If the world is to move towards more effective forms of representative government, it is imperative that political (or economic) structures that have become completely ineffective be dismantled, and new structures (that are more amenable to the will of the people) be instituted. Democracy must be understood as a lot more than merely voting for political representatives who can then cynically ignore the real will of the people. In all nations, democratic practices need to be reinvigorated or strengthened. An important part of this process must be the democratization of the UN, and the complete revamp of some of its institutions such as the Security Council which in recent years has functioned more like an Imperial War Council than a body that strives to resolve international crises in a fair and just way.