Thursday, December 02, 2004

UN

Whenever I talk with my friends about recent Iraq War, the issue of UN’s role in recent conflict inadvertently creeps in our discussion. We don’t discuss UN’s role per se, but we discuss UN’s viability in today’s world.

Personally, I think UN was established with too optimistic views. There is no way UN would have succeeded in its goal given 1950’s bi-polar world. Each nation had to take side of either of super-power. All though there was Non Aligned Moment, but even nations who drafted NAM end up taking sides. For example, India was notably pro-Russian.

The goal of UN to work peace and prosperity of whole globe was at best an illusion. I mean, each super-power were trying to gain as much power as possible, and were fighting in almost every corner of the world. At the same time these same super-powers were supporting UN for peace and prosperity of world community. Isn’t that ironic? A classic case of conflict of interest.

Fast forward the scenario in 1990’s. Russia was disintegrated and was no longer a superpower. US was the sole super-power and its economic, military and political power increased tremendously, particularly in 90’s. They became colossus in every sense. Their economy’s worth 11 trillion dollars. The next biggest economy is Japan, about half of US

‘s economy. The globalization made all the growing economies of the world depend on the US. Because in the world of supply and demand, US is biggest consumer in the world. So low wage nations like India and China are increasingly depending on US. There by handing more power to US.

Their military technology is beyond most of the world’s reach. (That technology is futile while dealing with Mr. Laden though) Their defense budget is $500 billion. India’s economy which is 11th largest economy in the world is still $480 billions. Even if you add 10 biggest defense spending nations of the world (less US) their spending is still less than $500 billions. Plus, their military reach on the globe is unparallel in human history. They are present in almost all parts of the world, and they weaponry has ability to strike any part of the world at will.

In such situation, if they decide to attack Iraq what can UN do? There’s nothing in world that UN would able to stop US. Come on! US is the biggest donor to UN. Basically US sustain UN. Of course from humanitarian aid point of view UN definitely do great job. Their efforts in providing food and other supplies in Africa are stupendous. But again US is the single largest donor of money in all the categories. I mean, from forest protection to AIDS drug development, US is the chief because they give money.

So, at least from US point of view, UN is a redundant body. US do not have to listen to UN, if there’s anything, then it should be other way round.

No comments: