In his strongest rebuke of the concept of unilateralist use of military force in launching the so-called pre-emptive Anglo-American war against Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan raised a number of core issues. His categorical rejection of US unilateralism in spite of George Bush arguing for it in his address to the UN General Assembly also symbolised the challenges the 191-member world body must address successfully if it is to survive. President Jacques Chirac, who endorsed the approach, was categorical in stating that the Iraq war launched without Security Council approval had undermined multilateralism. In turn the divisions generated by that war had posed the gravest dangers to multilateral institutions like the UN. The world today stands at the crossroads: one path leads to multilateral solutions to complex issues, the other to unilateralism, pre-emptive force and anarchy.Everyone understands that there are new threats to security that the world must cope with. But the consensus on how to deal with them has received a near fatal blow from the pre-emptive use of overwhelming military power against a member state without UN sanction. It is obvious that the UN Security Council, which must deal with issues of international peace and security, is an inheritance of the international order that passed into the dustbin of history long ago. Its legitimacy requires that it reflects the geo-political architecture of today and tomorrow rather than that of Yalta six decades ago. President Chirac, who received enthusiastic applause from the assembled nations, emphasised this reality while seeking the expansion of the Council in tune with the true state of the world. Meanwhile the need for consultations on the criteria for early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain challenges has been articulated.There would, undoubtedly, be further demands in the coming days for reforms in the UN. But if the unrepentant tone of President Bush’s address to the UN is any indication, there is little reason for optimism that such changes will take shape any time soon. More than ever before, the US badly needs the support of the international community for the stabilisation and reconstitution of Iraq. But instead of seeking that cooperation through mutual give and take, Bush, possibly concerned by falling grades in opinion polls for him and his war at home, was addressing his domestic constituency rather than his immediate audience of 191 nations. If this is so, he has only added insult to the existing injury to the world body. We can only hope that the path of multilateralism is resumed sooner rather than later. The alternate, of course, is the further marginalisation and obsolescence of the UN and its preventive diplomacy to solve challenges.
