U.N. Needs More Action, Less Debate
BY BENNY AVNI
January 31, 2005
Like the miniscule U.N. presence in Iraq, its election expert Carina Perelli's admonition for American troops to quit being overenthusiastic about helping Iraqis to vote was no more than a faint doodle on the margins of a brightly written page in history.
Secretary-General Annan's inner circle took it seriously however, clarifying quickly that Ms. Perelli misspoke. Last night Mr. Annan congratulated the U.N. and Iraqis on the election's success. The coalition, he said, also made a notable contribution.
There is a genuine attempt by a new team, led by Mr. Annan's new chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, to avoid fights with the U.N.'s chief benefactor. Contrary to the wishes of those on the Secretariat Building's 38th floor, American tax-payers voted to be led by President Bush, and now it is time to make up with them, the reasoning goes. As Ms. Perelli's gaffe demonstrates, however, this is a problem for many people at the U.N.
Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, once said that in the Middle East only the dreamer can be a true realist. At the U.N., however, the notion that America can come into an Arab land, wreak havoc, and turn it into democracy, is considered dangerously delusional. No amount of admonition from upstairs could prevent this notion from popping up every once in a while.
Ben Gurionist visionary realism is not the only strain of thought that sets Turtle Bay at odds with Washington. Ad-hoc coalitions of the willing are all the rage in Mr. Bush's foreign policy circles. The U.N. is a permanent, all-inclusive international organization.
We are promised a new floor-fight in the coming weeks on referring Sudan's war criminals to the International Criminal Court. This premature debate is very interesting to foreign policy eggheads and international law experts, but at this stage it is of very little consequence for the victims in Darfur, who continue to die at the rate of 10,000 a month.
To compare it to last week's Holocaust commemorations, it is a bit like arguing about the shape of the prosecution table at Nuremberg while the gas chambers of Auschwitz are still active.
Unable to resolve differences at the Security Council - an institution that was designed, among other things, to stop and prevent war crimes - the Europeans, with strong backing from Mr. Annan, want to assure that the guilty will be tried at the newly-founded ICC - an institution designed for trying war criminals.
Washington's opposition to the court is well known and its idea of extending the mandate of the ad-hoc Arusha, Tanzania tribunal - currently dealing with Rwandan war crimes - to Sudan, would work fine. The debate is much more about tweaking America than it is about Darfur.
What is needed, instead, is action. Backed by an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean, Washington should immediately declare and enforce a no-fly zone over western Sudan. A few British and American military experts should then help organize a sizeable African Union force on the ground, which will put an end to the slaughter and ensure that villagers can go back to their homes, now occupied by Khartoum backed Janjaweed militias.
It would be nice if all this is done with the blessing of the Security Council, but that is very unlikely. The council has ordered a report from Mr. Annan to determine whether genocide has taken place. Mr. Annan will say this week that horrible things happened, but they don't amount to genocide. This will provide enough fodder for another month long debate. He is also going to say that he knows who is responsible for unspeakable acts, but those names will remain sealed - a perfect opening salvo for the ICC debate.
Anyone serious about solving problems in the real world should tolerate this cumbersome method of doing business, but not for too long. The Bush administration is stung by accusations about its unilateralist tendencies. They should get over it. As hard as they'll try to camouflage it, the majority at the U.N. believe the organization's real mission is to counterbalance the world's only superpower.
With 22 election experts on the ground in Iraq Ms. Perelli felt that as the only global moral authority, the U.N., should teach 150,000 American troops under fire the correct method to oversee an election. The troops, as well as Iraqis, were too busy to hear her because U.N. debates are still of too little consequence to matter in real life.
They certainly are no substitute for action, and as Iraq, Sudan, and soon Iran will prove, action is sometimes needed to make a difference.