BY MAX M. KAMPELMAN
Tuesday, January 6, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
The United Nations is perceived by most Americans as indispensable
for maintaining stability in the world. That was certainly the intent
when it was created at the end of World War II. Its charter proclaims
that "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth
of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women" are
principles central to peace and security. Regrettably, the U.N. has
failed to act upon the centrality of human rights to its mission.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan apparently recognized this reality in his
Nobel lecture when he said: "The sovereignty of states must no
longer be used as a shield for gross violations of human rights."
Since the U.N.'s creation, millions have been killed, maimed,
starved, tortured or raped by brutal rulers whose governments
nevertheless wield great influence in the U.N. General Assembly and the
Security Council. These facts clearly reflect the inadequacies and
failures of the U.N. For example, North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il,
has inflicted a holocaust on his people. Defectors and observers have
estimated that more than a million people have starved to death in
brutal Gulag-type camps. The resulting flood of refugees into China,
where an estimated 360,000 North Koreans may now be hiding in an effort
to escape brutality, has not produced action in the U.N., though the
U.N. High Commission on Refugees is fully aware of this human
catastrophe. China classifies these tragic human beings as
"economic migrants" and "not refugees," while
cynically embracing the refugee convention as the "Magna Carta of
international refugee law" and thereby earning the applause of U.N.
officials.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has become a travesty. Two years
ago, the U.S.--which has worked diligently to make the commission an
effective instrument--was replaced by Syria, a corrupt, totalitarian
supporter of terrorism. This year, in spite of American efforts, Libya
was elected to chair the commission, an egregious challenge to the
commission's integrity considering Libya's rule by a militant tyrant
responsible for the 1988 bombing of a U.S. civilian jet in Lockerbie in
which 270 people were murdered. U.S. opposition to Libya was supported
only by Canada and Guatemala; 33 countries voted for Libya, while our
European "friends" conspicuously abstained from voting at all.
In electing such states as Syria, Libya, Vietnam, China, Saudi Arabia,
Cuba and Zimbabwe to serve on the commission, the ostensible guardian of
human rights, the U.N. has forfeited its commitment to those values.
In 1948, the U.N. recognized Israel as a new state and member.
Shortly thereafter, Israel's Arab neighbors--refusing to accept the U.N.
decision--invaded Israel. Since that time, and until quite recently,
neighboring Arab states have publicly considered themselves in a
perpetual state of war with Israel, and have acted accordingly. How has
the U.N. responded? Since 1964, the Security Council has passed 88
resolutions against Israel--the only democracy in the region--while the
General Assembly has passed more than 400 such resolutions. The U.N., an
organization committed to peace, permitted Yasser Arafat to address its
General Assembly in 1974 with a pistol on his hip, and subsequently
formed--under U.N. auspices and with U.N. funding--three separate
entities with large staffs which advance the Palestine Liberation
Organization's anti-Israel agenda: the Division for Palestine Rights;
the Committee for the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; and
the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices
Affecting the Palestinian People. No Arab state has ever been chastised
by the U.N. for actions against Israel and for its defiance of the 1948
U.N. resolution.
Is it any wonder that many Americans hesitate to place our security
concerns in the hands of the U.N.? Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as he was
leaving his role as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. in 1976, called it a
"theater of the absurd."
The U.N. today remains far short of realizing its potential or its
stated aspirations. Its direction and control have been hijacked by
authoritarian regimes, the relics of yesterday. We must work diligently
toward realizing its original goals: freedom, democracy and human rights
for all the peoples of the world. Until then, with our national values
and security at stake, we must not permit our interests to be diverted
and undermined by the unprincipled.
At a minimum, it is essential that the U.S. take the lead in
establishing and strengthening a Caucus of Democratic States committed
to advancing the U.N.'s assigned role for world peace, human dignity and
democracy. The recently established Community of Democracies (CD) has
called for this move, a recommendation jointly supported in a recent
report by the Council on Foreign Relations and Freedom House.
In June 2000, the U.S., under the leadership of Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright and in cooperation with Poland, Chile, Mali and other
democratic states, convened the first meeting of the CD to
"collaborate on democratic-related issues in existing international
and regional institutions . . . aimed at the promotion of
democratic government." More than 100 countries participated. It
was necessary for the CD to withhold full membership from some countries
that sought to be included but did not adequately meet democratic
standards. A second such meeting took place in Seoul in November 2002,
where participants reaffirmed the need to create a U.N. Caucus of
Democratic States. Secretary of State Colin Powell called it "a new
tool in the U.S. policy tool bag." A third meeting of the CD is
scheduled for Chile in 2005. The CD could be effective in refocusing the
efforts of the U.N. to more closely follow its founding principles. At
the same time, the CD is uniquely capable of filling the gaps left by
the U.N.'s inadequacies, both internally and externally. But the CD's
existence seems to be a great secret in the press. How often have you
read about it?
The Community of Democracies is not alone in recognizing the need for
more ardent advocacy of democratic principles in the U.N. The European
Parliament early last year called for the creation of a working
democratic caucus at the Human Rights Commission. Recently, Sen. Joseph
Biden introduced a resolution in the Senate in support of the
establishment of a U.N Democratic Caucus as "an idea whose time has
come." It would be enormously valuable for the president of the
United States to address the American people and enunciate a strong
overall policy on the U.N., its opportunities and its limitations. He
should make clear that broad promises about human rights must be
replaced by specific implementation of human rights standards.
In order to advance the principles of the U.N. Charter, a strong
Democratic Caucus must emphasize human dignity as an essential
ingredient for peace and stability. It must challenge and limit the
influence of the regional blocs that, for example, decide on the
rotating membership of the Security Council and the various U.N.
missions and commissions. Decisions and resolutions of the heavily
politicized General Assembly--including the selection of states for
commissions and other U.N. activities--should be formally approved by
the Security Council before being considered decisions of the U.N. This
would provide a safeguard for the U.N. Charter's foundational principles
and objectives. More difficult is the need to reorganize the composition
of the Security Council itself to reflect today's realities and not
those of 50 years ago.
A strong case may be made for the need for an international body to
which all of the world's states, democratic and authoritarian, belong.
Discussion and constructive exchange may flow from it. But let us not
bestow on it the appearance of being a forum of principle or wisdom
qualified to judge the dimension of our national welfare and value. The
changes necessary in the U.N. will be difficult to achieve, and some may
not be achieved at all. But the impetus for such change must be a
commitment to human rights and democracy. We should put Kofi Annan's
statement to the test: "When the U.N. can truly call itself a
Community of Democracies, the Charter's noble ideas of protecting human
rights . . . will have been brought much closer."
Mr. Kampelman was U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe.