This will brief about its working!
Dilemmas of the same kind
By Shamshad Ahmad Khan
THE United Nations at 60 is weak and frail, not in size, but in terms of its credibility and authority. It now also stands crippled by scandals of corruption, inefficiency and gross mismanagement. Two years senior in age to our own country, it is doing no better with a woeful record of failures and a dismal culture of poor governance.
Throughout its independent statehood, Pakistan that came into being as a fortress of ‘peace and honour” for the Muslims of the subcontinent, has gone through traumatic experiences, including costly wars, loss of half the country, political breakdowns, military takeovers, economic stagnation and social malaise.
Throughout its existence since it came into being as “mankind’s last best hope”, the UN has failed to deliver on its Charter obligations. It has prevented no war or genocide and resolved no dispute and remains helplessly far from fulfilling its promise of peace and prosperity. In both cases, the visions given to them by their founding fathers remain unfulfilled. Democratic norms as well as the respective basic legal frameworks, the Charter in the case of the UN and the Constitution in the case of Pakistan have received little respect or adherence in practical terms.
The vision of an ideal democratic state and a progressive Pakistan promising to its people long-cherished freedom, genuine democracy and social justice remains illusive. The UN also envisioned a global system, which would be based on justice and equity and governed by rules, laws, values and cooperation. Unfortunately, the world that ensued was neither just nor equal, and remains divided between two unequal parts, one incredibly rich, and the other desperately poor.
Agonizingly, since independence, Pakistan has been wallowing in political and economic uncertainty and has had neither domestic stability nor peaceful borders. Its 58-year political history has been replete with crises that perhaps no other country in the world has experienced.
In both cases, the goals of freedom from fear, want and ignorance continue to elude realization. Pakistan has not achieved socio-political stability and economic self-reliance nor has the UN freed the world from conflict, oppression, violence, poverty, hunger and disease. Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah had warned against the “evils” of bribery, corruption, black-marketing, nepotism and jobbery. He wanted these evils to be nipped with “an iron hand”.
We as a nation have not only failed to grapple with these challenges but are living with these problems as an “integral” part of our society. Crime and corruption are rampant. Aversion to the rule of law is endemic. Poor governance is our national hallmark. There is constant erosion of law and order.
The UN’s reality is no less grim. As a universal organization, it was meant to provide a moral edifice for the reordering of the global system in conformity with its ideals and to function as an instrument of international legitimacy upholding the “fundamental values of freedom, tolerance and solidarity as well as the basic principles of human dignity, equality and equity” at the global level. Unfortunately, the UN has never risen above the considerations of “power and expediency”. Today’s UN is no more than a debating club, producing voluminous and repetitive documentation without any tangible results.
And now, according to Paul Volcker’s Independent Inquiry Committee, which Secretary-General Kofi Annan had himself tasked to look into the scandals surrounding the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme, has indicted the UN as being guilty of “illicit, unethical and corrupt” behaviour.
Though absolved himself of any wrongdoing, the secretary-general is being blamed for “poor leadership and complacency” over the scandals involving the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme and sexual abuse charges against senior UN officials as well as the blue-helmeted peace-keepers in Africa.
Indeed, the UN has never been so helpless and ineffective in meeting its Charter obligations. In recent years, its role has been circumvented by the unabashed use of power. The new unipolarity is responsible for an ominous effect on the role and relevance of the UN, leaving very little to be addressed meaningfully through a multilateral approach.
Ironically, both Pakistan and the UN have been at the mercy of the US, always in need of “political and material” support and succour from Washington for their survival. Both have had painful experiences and yet have learnt no lessons. Both seem to be content with their respective “errands” and roles on behalf and in the interest of the sole superpower of this century. Both appear to have no other option. Perhaps they have a point.
The world has changed. Pakistan and the UN confront a dual challenge in terms of the risks and opportunities presented to them by the turbulent world of today. After a century of “great wars” and “great upsurge” in terms of freedom, democracy and human rights, the new millennium unfortunately did not start well for Pakistan and the UN.
Both remain burdened with the same problems, perhaps in their acutest form. Pakistan’s difficulties have been exacerbated by decades of political ineptitude and instability, protracted military rule, economic stagnation, rampant corruption, and general aversion to the rule of law. Religious extremism, obscurantism and terrorism-related problems have given Pakistan a new identity and placed it on the global radar screen.
For the UN, its multiple challenges lie in the uninterrupted global legacy of armed conflict, unresolved disputes, military occupations, invasions in the name of self-defence, wars of aggression and attrition, human tragedies and humanitarian catastrophes, massacres and genocides, which continue to define the “new world disorder.” There is no let up in violence. Injustice and oppression continue unabated. Poverty, hunger, disease, and above all, human rights violations and denial of basic rights are endemic to most societies.
The global development agenda has been set aside, if not shelved. Humanity finds itself divided along economic and religious lines. Dialogue among civilizations is almost dead.
The economic adventurism of the 19th century is resurfacing. Iraq is still burning. Peace has yet to come to Afghanistan. Kashmir stands disillusioned. Palestine has given up. Terrorism is the new scourge afflicting our world. Unfortunately, the war on terror has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation.
According to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, terrorism is the product of what he once described as “a broader mix of problems caused by bad governments, opportunistic politicians and militant leaders who exploit grievances”. At one time, he also believed that “when there are no legitimate means of addressing the massive and systemic political, economic and social inequalities, an environment is created in which peaceful solutions often lose out against extreme and violent alternatives”. Our president also subscribes to this view and believes that terrorism stems from unresolved disputes and issues that have not been addressed, giving rise to forces of hatred and violence.
With growing complexity and magnitude of inter-connected global challenges, the despair over the UN’s capacity to manage these has been increasing. What aggravates this bleak scenario is the growing inability of the international community to respond to these challenges with unity of purpose. There is no global consensus on major peace and security issues or on how to address them. The UN General Assembly, despite its universal character, has no role or authority in decisions of global relevance and impact.
In Pakistan too, there is no consensus on major national issues with the mainstream political forces standing “marginalized,” and the country’s parliament remaining “trivialized”. The people of Pakistan or the parliaments “elected” in their name have also had no role in determining the course of their history or the direction of their country’s political, economic and social policies.
The closeness of problems and challenges between Pakistan and the UN does not end here. Both suffer a serious image problem with deep-rooted negative perceptions about their policies and performance. Both are conscious of the need to correct this image and their leadership, howsoever beleaguered, is sparing no effort to manage the grim situation.
President Musharraf is seeking to enlighten Pakistan with “moderation and tolerance” while also projecting its credentials of “peace and honour” at regional and global levels. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, on his part, has been vigorously pursuing “bold and radical” reform for the strengthening of the United Nations. Intentions on the part of both are genuine but the issues they are seeking to grapple with are complex and need an attitudinal change.
These are exceptional times warranting exceptional responses to common challenges. With this imperative in mind, the secretary-general through his report In Larger Freedom, tried to forge a global consensus on core issues of “development, security, human rights and UN renewal”. In his ambitious approach, however, he went too far in advocating the “realities of power” and espousing a “compromise” on principles.
The overwhelming majority of UN membership also saw in his report a clear imbalance in the development-related content and the “security agenda”. Some thought he was more responsive to the preferences of a particular group of influential countries and trying to appease certain quarters at a time when he was under “pressure and scrutiny” on his handling of the Oil-for-Food Programme.
In New York, world leaders, found it difficult to endorse the secretary-general’s “ambitious” agenda or to allow him the authority and powers of a “corporate chief executive officer”. They gave him only a limited framework to proceed with his reform programme.
What is clear in today’s context is that both in Pakistan and the UN, the “system and methods of governance” are no longer an issue of relevance as far as the international community is concerned. Perhaps, there is no alternative to continuing with the present system in both cases.
There must be lot of anxiety, however, among the major powers on the prospect of “succession” which in both cases will be due in 2007. Kofi Annan’s renewal of office has statutory limitations, though as in 2001, he may be counting on Asia’s inability to field a unanimous candidate this time too.
On his part, President Musharraf is well-entrenched, both domestically and externally, constitutional constraints notwithstanding, for another five-year term.
Meanwhile, there is “good news” in the final outcome at the New York Summit for us in Pakistan. A “democracy fund” has been established at the UN in support of “democratic principles and practices” in the member states. Whatever its size, the fund may not be sufficient to meet the “going price” of getting elected to Pakistan’s local bodies or assemblies or for switching loyalties and affiliations, but hopefully will be sufficient at least to serve the “genuine” needs of our politicians in terms of their “training and travelling” in the name of democracy. No wonder, India, the largest democracy, will be contributing significantly through “generous funds and rich experience”.
On its part, the UN is also groping for help to reinforce and renovate its 38-storey headquarters building in New York at an estimated cost of a billion dollars. An American business magnate, Donald Trump is believed to have offered assistance. The UN in need will indeed accept the offer, if it has not already done so. But it will never consider moving its headquarters to a more “hospitable” city even if the host government offers to build at its own cost “an equally grand and posh” premises. In the ultimate analysis, indeed, Pakistan and the UN, despite their “dilemmas of the same kind,” have no choices.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.