CRISIS OF U.N.O.
DR.
R. C. MAJUMDAR
Former
Vice-Chancellor,
Whenever
I think of the United Nations Organisation (UNO), I am reminded of the quaint
Sanskrit phrase smasana-vairagya. It
means the spirit of renunciation which overwhelms a man when watching the dead
body of a near and dear one being burnt to ashes in the burning ghat. In most cases that spirit passes away sooner or
later, and the man resumes his normal life, until he is faced again with a
similar scene. The U. N. O. and its predecessor, the
The
proposal was enthusiastically acclaimed by a war-weary world and 50
nations sent their representatives to the San Francisco Conference which met on
25th April, 1945. After nine weeks of debate and discussion,
the Conference drew up on 26th June, 1945, the Charter of the United Nations
intended to serve as the framework of a new World Organisation. Its fundamental
objects were: to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly
relations among nations on the basis of equal rights and self-determination of
peoples; to achieve international cooperation in the handling of world-wide
economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems; and to promote respect
for human rights, dignity and freedom. In order to achieve these ends,
every
Before
we discuss how far these admirable ideals were carried into practice, we must
note the new trend of thought and idealism which this organisation introduced
into the contemporary world. It gave rise to a new faith and hope in the heart
of mankind. The faith grew that perpetual peace is possible and almost within
reach, provided there is good-will among people and they are ready to make
sacrifice for the common good of mankind. War ceased to be looked upon as the
ultimate resort of diplomacy, and instead of force, and resort to war, the
nations chalked out a new line based on mediation, negotiation and
conciliation, to settle disputes among nations. There was also the idea of one
world, in which the weakness of one State is the weakness of all, and the
strength of one–not the military strength but the real strength, the economic
and social strength, the happiness of the people–is indirectly the strength of
all.
These
ideas which have been emphasised again and again
during nearly 20 years by the precept and example of the UNO will ever remain
the priceless heritage of mankind. Whatever we may think of
the measure of success achieved by the UNO and whatever may be
its future, there is no doubt that humanitarianism, in the true sense of the
word, has got a fillip from this great organisation
such as it had ever received before from any other source.
More
than 19 years have passed since the foundation of the UNO, and it is time to
take stock of what it has actually done to fulfill the great mission it
undertook. To make a proper appraisal of this we must divide the activities of
the UNO into two broad divisions–political and non-political. Its
achievements on the non-political side are summed up as follows at the end of
the first decade of its existence:
“More
than 90 countries and territories, by 1954, had received technical and economic
assistance under UN auspices. Thousands of experts representing scores of
nationalities were sent to aid the less-highly developed areas
and thousands of fellowships were granted to residents of
these areas for study in the industrialised
countries. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF)
provided equipment, supplies, and information that by 1953 had benefited 60
million children in 70 countries. More than 1500 million dollars had been
loaned to 28 countries by 1953 through the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development. The International Monetary
Fund helped many countries maintain relatively stable currencies and improve
their banking policies. The Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO) helped increase farm, fishery, and forest productivity throughout the
world, while the World Health Organisation (WHO) fought disease on
all fronts, distributed vast quantities of penicillin and other drugs
(particularly to tropical areas) and fostered effective international
quarantine regulations. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural
Organisation (UNESCO) undertook to reduce illiteracy, provide vocational
education where needed, and stimulate the world-wide exchange of new
knowledge.” More recently this body has turned its attention to a programme of
publications which would promote better understanding and good-will among the different
peoples of the world; in particular, by emphasizing the contributions to the
cultural and scientific development of mankind made by
different nations in different ages and countries. An International Commission
appointed by the UNESCO has recently brought out the first
of the projected six-volume history of mankind written on a new plan, in which
emphasis will be laid not on wars and conquests which now fill the pages of
history, but on the peaceful activities which have enabled mankind to make steady
progress from a primitive life to the present state of culture. There
are also the International Labour Organisation and the International Court of
Justice which have rendered splendid service to improve the status of labourers and settle disputes among nations without an
appeal to arms.
The
UNO has been steadily expanding these activities. In 1958 more than fifty
million mothers and children in 97 countries and territories derived benefits
from the UNICEF which received an allotment of more than 60 million dollars for
its operations in
This
record of humanitarian work is merely illustrative and by no means exhaustive
and activities in these and other fields increased with progress of time.
Although, great as they are, they may not be very much when compared with the
immensity of the work that still remains to be done, still nobody can deny that
so far as the non-political work is concerned the UNO has not disappointed the
expectant world. But the same thing cannot be said of its political work. In
this field the high hopes of bringing peace and security to the whole world
were dashed to the ground almost from the very beginning. The UNO Charter was
based on the assumption that the war-time agreement between the three great
powers,
But
apart from this the record of the UNO as the guarantor of peace and security of
the world has not been very satisfactory. It is true that its interference has
been effective in many cases of a minor nature, but its failure is also writ large
in its short history of 19 years.
The
first great anomaly which marked the organisation of the UNO was the exclusion
of
UNO
has also failed to evolve a peaceful, orderly political evolution of
The
main reason of these and other failures is that the Smasana-vairagya
of the nations has passed away and the old ideas of power politics among
the big nations have regained their sway. But Russia alone cannot be accused of
this charge. England and France violated the letter and spirit of the UNO
Charter when they wantonly invaded Egypt and bombed its cities in 1956. Our own
country–India–also cannot be absolved from this charge. When China destroyed
the independence and civilisation of Tibet, India did not lift her little
finger and did not even support the motion to bring the case of Tibet before
the UNO. The will-o’-the-wisp of Chinese alliance made India remain a mute
witness of this crime against humanity and thereby sacrifice the fundamental
principles for which the UNO stood. Thus the UNO, instead of being an impartial
organisation for securing peace and justice for all nations, has
become more or less a handy instrument for serving national interests in the
name of internationalism. When Indian forces occupied Goa
and drove away the foreign Portuguese Government, the big Powers of the West
would have passed a vote of censure and probably taken other steps against
India, but for the veto of Russia.
Unpaid
Assessment: In some cases concerning the weaker nations, the
UNO has achieved some success in preventing war, only because of conflicting
interests of bigger powers divided in their sympathy to the rival states. The
UNO Emergency Force succeeded in preventing open collision between Israel and
Egypt. Far more arduous was the undertaking of the UNO to establish peace
between the rival warring factions in Congo, just freed from the yoke of
Belgium. The UNO took upon itself the responsibility for maintaining peace and
security without infringing any internal function of the government. The
magnitude of the task will be apparent from the fact that in September 1960,
16,400 officers and soldiers, supplied by 28 nations, were engaged in Congo operations.
But this expensive military operation could not be carried on because some
nations who were against it for self-interest, but were in a minority in the
General Assembly which sanctioned the military operations, adopted a more
dubious method to nullify the efforts of the UNO, by withholding the payment of
subscriptions due from them according to the rules of the UNO. This point is
not so simple as it appears but has a long history behind it.
The UNO exercises its power through a General Assembly and the Security Council. Each member State is a member of the Assembly and has only one vote, irrespective of its size or population. Decisions on important questions require a two-thirds vote; others only a simple majority. It normally meets only once a year. The Security Council functions as its Executive body and is always in session. It has five permanent members (China, a France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States) and six non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly. Decisions of the Council require seven votes, viz., the votes of all the five permanent members and two others. This means that the dissent of a single permanent member means the rejection of the proposal. This clause was inserted because it was thought just that all the big five powers, on whom would rest the chief burden of carrying through any military operations, must be in accord before any arduous work was undertaken and, considering the relation between the five great powers in 1945 when the Charter was drawn up, it was hoped that they would always act in accord on all major questions of policy. But the break of Russia as the head of the communist bloc from the other four permanent members, created an altogether new situation. This was realised by the frequent use of the veto power by Russia to thwart all the proposals which were not to the liking of the communist bloc. The gravity of this danger was realised when the Security Council decided to take military action against North Korean forces who had invaded South Korea, as mentioned above. At that time Russia had boycotted the Council by way of protest against the selection of Formosa rather than China as the permanent member of the Security Council, Everybody realised that had Russia been present in the Council, she would have used her veto to thwart the project of sending military aid to South Korea, and the whole Korea overrun by the communist forces of North Korea, would have turned ‘Red’. To prevent such a catastrophe in the future, powers were given to the veto-less and more representative General Assembly to deal with similar situations. This meant that Russia would no longer be able to prevent any such action by its veto if the General Assembly decides to take it. Russia naturally grew furious and found a way out of the difficulty. The Congo military operations were sanctioned by the General Assembly and not the Security Council, and Russia maintained that she was not bound to pay her share of the expenses for an undertaking to which she was opposed. This introduced a dangerous principle. The example of Russia was followed by other nations, with the result that by 1963, 60 nations owed UNO 106 million dollars in unpaid assessment, largely though not wholly, for the support of peace-keeping operations. (According to latest reports U.S.A. has also decided not to pay its usual 40 per cent contribution–Ed.) At the present moment the UNO is faced with this grave crisis. It has brought into prominence another grave danger, viz., the division of the UNO into groups as in a rigid party system, so that it is not very difficult to forecast the casting of votes on any important question. This takes away the very foundation on which the UNO was built and which alone can guarantee that sense of equity and justice without which such an international organisation cannot survive as a useful institution.