The American-Euro Conflict,UN & India

[Guest guest]

The UNO deformation

"It is in India's interest if the present world order disintegrates

and a new world order replaces it. India should work harder in this

direction. In the old order of which the uno is only a part, P-5 and

G-8 hold the sway. India, even if admitted to these apex groups will

not feel comfortable in their company. Indian genius does not fit

into the war-mongers' mould."

Dr Jitendra Kumar Sharma

 

organiser.org

"A mood of uncertainty has descended on the leaders of the United

Nations", wrote the New York Times. This is a generally prevailing

sentiment about the UNO at this time, which is also reflected in the

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's speech. He said that the world

organisation finds itself on a "forked" path implying that it has

deflected from the course, on which it was set on its inception

toward the end of the Second World War.

 

The most important fact about the UNO is that it was brought about by

warring nations. There was another similar organisation that preceded

the UNO. It was called the League of Nations and was created at the

end of the First World War. The League of Nations disintegrated as

the warring Western powers learnt no lesson from the First World War

(1914-18). They went to another war on a world scale and much more

horrifying than the first. The Second World War (1939-45) came to an

end after the Usa dropped atomic bombs on the japanese cities of

hiroshima and nagasaki. The fear of these weapons of mass destruction

was so enormous that even the victors of the war felt self-

terrorised. They got together in a sombre mood at san fransico in

1945 after six years of war and formed this international

organisation whose charter was endorsed by fifty nations.

 

The United Nations Organisation was a part of an international

settlement, which looked upon the terrible Second World War as "a war

to end all wars". But these words proved hollow and soon the same

powers, who were allies during the war, became enemies. Instead of

cooperation for peace in the world, there ensued a fierce competition

between the Capitalist bloc led by the usa and the Communist bloc led

by the erstwhile Soviet Union. Both sides created unbelievably large

arsenals of missiles, nuclear bombs, spy satellites and other weapons

of mass destruction. The deadly competition was given the name "cold

war". It created further political and economic divisions. The

international community now came to be classed as the first, second

and third worlds. The poorer countries were naturally the third

world. The rich and more powerful countries that had gained

experience of creating deadly weapons from the two world wars sold

these weapons to poorer nations. More and more nations were being

born in the post-colonial period. They all became members of the

United Nations. The rich and powerful nations were selling more and

more weapons to the increasing number of weaker and poorer countries.

They found it a good way of becoming richer, more influential and

powerful as they sold weapons on their own terms. More weapons sold

meant more conflicts. More conflicts meant need for more weapons.

 

Looking back now, it seems that the settlement after the Second World

War was not "to end all wars". It, in effect, was an international

arrangement to "end all peace". The United Nations was conceived as

an organisation to promote international cooperation but it became a

platform for articulating the voices of conflict. It had no

capability for enforcing peace. It no longer looked like the creation

of the victors of the world war. It became merely a creature of the

most powerful among them. After the invasion of Iraq by the usa, the

pitiable and deforming shape of the UNO is now on public display. The

unilateral action of the usa in the face of opposition by France and

Russia has made the uno's position more obviously ambiguous.

Therefore,

 

 

 

 

there is much talk about its reform but no action on that front. In

fact, the veto-wielding powers wish to maintain the status quo are

making noises publicly but privately they are bargaining among

themselves for maximum gains. The warmongering nations, who created

the uno, consider any war or armed conflict in any part of the world

as a method and means of getting richer and more dominant. All of

them became rich after the war irrespective of which side they were

fighting during the Second World War. The Iraq war is a big prize for

all of them and it suits them to keep the cauldron boiling. Iraq was

their creation after the First World War. Iraq was armed to the teeth

in the 1980's by the Usa. Sometimes one wonders why is America so

sure that Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Maybe, because the

usa itself supplied them to Saddam when he was in its good books and

fighting against Iran goaded and armed by the USSR.

 

The uno has increased in numerical strength four times since its

inception in 1945. Its annual session reflects the changing equations

among world groups and individual strengths of the participating

nations. India certainly has gained in stature at the uno. Its claim

to be a member of the Security Council may not have many takers. But

on whose side it throws its weight has started to matter. President

Bush's lunch invitation to Prime Minister Vajpayee and French

President Chirac's speaking out in favour of India's claim to be a

member of the Security Council are symbolic gestures. Recent Indian

stand at the Cancun wto meet was also fresh in the mind of the United

Nations at New York and certainly added to India's importance as an

emerging economic and political power. India has been a victim of the

world order and the uno system and its turning the corner certainly

augurs well.

 

It is in India's interest if the present world order disintegrates

and a new world order replaces it. India should work harder in this

direction. In the old order of which the uno is only a part, P-5 and

G-8 hold the sway. India, even if admitted to these apex groups will

not feel comfortable in their company. Indian genius does not fit

into the war-mongers' mould. A more democratic and more broad-based

system has to be developed for international development and peaceful

evolution of a new world, in which the best that has been thought and

found in any part of the world will be assimilated as the heritage of

man. No one country's or even group of countries' dominance should be

encouraged in the new world order. In the cyclic theory of history,

no one nation or country can always remain on top of the world. The

uncertainty of the uno is indicative of the decline of the world

conquerors of yesterday, whose time appears to be coming to an end.

 

Both Europe and America are giving contradictory signals at the un

General Assembly, at once confrontational and conciliatory to each

other. The immediate context is Iraq but the reasons for their forked

tongues are deeper. They are, in fact, engaged in weakening each

other. The usa does not want to see that larger and more unified

Europe should come into being. Iraq dilemma will not be easy to

resolve at the uno. Even after the agreement or passing of any

resolution, agreed or otherwise, the differences will persist and new

problems will arise between america and europe. It is naïve to think

that Iraq is the one and only problem between usa and Europe.

World

 

Window

 

Europe is finding it most difficult to find a clear vision of the

world for itself. The usa has disturbed its course toward unity by

tempting the erstwhile Soviet bloc, East European nations like the

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and Romanians to its side on the Iraq issue

but none of these countries is in a position to send troops to Iraq

as large-scale reinforcements needed by the American military

dispensation there. These countries are in for a shock. If the usa is

incapable of managing the situation in Iraq solo, how can these

countries believe that the usa will give them the kind of assistance,

which they need to remain secure and prosperous in a measure equal to

the Western Europe?

 

The interest of the usa lies not in helping any country in Europe.

Its interest is to divide Europe, keep it divided and weak. In such a

scenario, to think of reformation of the uno in the immediate future

is mere chimera.

 

Mauritius has a new PM

 

Atul Rawat

 

There has been a transfer of power in Mauritius, and that too without

a ballot or bullet. It has come about in an arrangement of sharing

power and has brought the first non-Indian origin person to the post

of Prime Minister. Paul Berenger, leader of Mauritian Militant

Movement (MMM), is a person of French origin and is the first Prime

Minister from minorities in a country, where the people of Indian

origin constitute as much as seventy per cent of the total population

of around 1.2 million. It was a British colony till 1968 and since

then has been led by people of Indian origin.

 

Sir Anerood Jugnauth, who has vacated the Prime Ministership will now

become the President, which is more of a ceremonial position. It was

a pact between the MMM of Berenger and Militant Socialist Movement

(MSM) of Jugnauth that for first three years Jugnauth will be the

Prime Minister and will be followed by the rest of two years of the

term by Berenger. It was under this pact that the two parties

contested elections and won as many as fifty-seven seats in a sixty-

member Parliament in the last general elections held in 2000. The

next elections are slated for year 2005.

 

Both the leaders pay lip service to the philosophy of militant

socialism but both are in reality liberal. Jugnauth has to his credit

the economic miracle of the 1980s by adopting liberal policies while

Berenger turned to a free Marketer from a radical socialist labour

union leader. He was Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister in

the outgoing cabinet of Jugnauth. He has good support base among

minorities. Though some observers expect that he would face a major

challenge in appeasing people of Indian origin who have been in power

since 1968. But on the other hand, it should also be noted that if he

is able to continue to

 

receive the support of MSM of Sir Jugnauth this might not pose any

serious threat to him.