Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Jesse Helmes seems to be adopting a mar diay jaye or chhod diya jaye approach to the UN. The legislative branch of the US seems to be bent on translating the attitudes of those redoubtable ladies of the US foreign policy establishment, Jean Kirkpatrick and Madeleine Albright, of ``toe the line, or else'' into US policies towards the UN. The US seems increasingly inclined to mould the UN as an instrumentality to meet the more US-centric objectives in its foreign policy, even if it erodes the international and autonomous character of the UN.

Kirkpatrick had first articulated this approach in the Eighties when she was Permanent Representative to the UN, when she stated that US support and its response to social and developmental issues affecting a majority of UN members would depend on the extent to which the UN and its members are responsive to US interests. Present Secretary of State Madeleine Albright transmuted this approach into a policy stance when she opposed the granting of a second term to Boutros Ghali because of his insistence on maintaining the independence of the Secretary-General. Present Secretary-General Kofi Annan was the second choice of the US as Boutros Ghali's replacement.

The US has chosen to influence the working of the UN due to three reasons: it is the largest contributor to the UN budget, paying 30 per cent. Secondly, it is the foremost political and military power in the UN. Third, it has the general backing of the industrially advanced countries as well as a large number of countries whose political stability and economic well-being depend on their having a good equation with the US. The initial idealism and sense of international responsibility which animated Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy to create and nurture the UN, have been gradually replaced by a more self-centred attitude. The US' withdrawal from UNESCO, its failure to pay $1.5 billion in dues to the UN and its desire to be the controlling element in the UN's political and peacekeeping operations manifest these trends.

There was some expectation that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War would give the US a greater sense of security and a capacity for altruistic detachment. President Bush's statements about a new world order had generated this expectation, which now seems to be illusory.

Matters seem to be reaching criticality as far as the UN is concerned due to developments and policy stances articulated in the US in recent weeks.Kofi Annan had gone to Washington immediately after assuming charge in January 1997. He not only pleaded for the US's full support to the UN with President Clinton and the executive branch, but he made it a point to meet representatives of the US Congress and sections of the US establishment involved with the UN to move back from the controversies of the Ghali period. While Clinton's response was positive, Kofi Annan apparently did not quite succeed in changing the attitude of the leaders of the US Legislature. This is despite his giving a series of assurances about reorganising the Secretariat, economising on expenditure and defining priorities for UN activities in consultation with the US and its important allies.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has stipulated a number of conditionalities since the end of March for financing the UN and for giving long-term support to it. They are: Activities and policy pronouncements of the UN and its agencies should not contradict vital US interests or US laws. The UN should wind up its regional economic organisations and terminate observer missions in conflict-prone areas (This should suit India, which would certainly like the UNMOGIP in Kashmir to be disbanded). Peace-keeping operations should be subject to realistic political and economic considerations rather than the general objectives of the Charter. Diplomats accredited to the UN in New York should waive their immunities to conform to US domestic laws and regulations. General hints have been given that if this particular precondition is not accepted, the US would not mind the UN headquarters being moved out of New York. The US is also not terribly keen on opening up the permanent membership of the Security Council to the developing countries.

Kofi Annan faces these complexities despite having taken some initial steps to restructure the UN Secretariat to give the West a more influential role. He has nominated representatives from Western countries to head the Department of Public Affairs, the Department of Political Affairs, the Division dealing with peace-keeping operations and the Division dealing with budget and administration. Most individuals heading specialised UN agencies are also from the industrially advanced countries. Annan has put a Chinese in charge of the logistical Division and of conference arrangements and related coordination.

The two Indian Under Secretaries-General are located in curious posts. Nitin Desai has been made in charge of an integrated division dealing with social and economic problems and related activities. Chinmay Gharekhan, who was dealing with the Security Council during Ghali's time, has been made the Secretary-General's special representative in the Middle East. Both are dicey assignments. Desai will be blamed if he cannot scale down social and developmental activities. Gharekhan has been moved out of the headquarters to deal with an admittedly critical political situation. But Middle East problems are not really being dealt with by the UN. So if the UN does not emerge as an effective catalyst in dealing with issues of the Middle East, here again the representative of a developing country would be blamed. The United States, which should have been more supportive of Kofi Annan, seems to be adopting a negative stance. Contributions due from it are going to be released in instalments subject to the Secretariat conforming to US stipulations. The majority of members of the UN should be concerned about these developments. They should be interested in evolving joint strategies and cohesive policies to nurture the UN's independence. Kofi Annan faces a tough task, a critical predicament. He, as well as the members of the UN, would have to focus attention on these negative trends when the UN General Assembly commences its 52nd session in September. In this, Kofi Annan deserves India's full support.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.