Answers in the Straits Times

The Straits Times (Singapore)

Is UN irrelevant?

April 18, 2003 Friday

MR MAURO Suttora ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16) sounds like an apologist for the United States action in Iraq.
He cited instances of the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, corruption and high salaries of its officials.
Even if those charges were true, his implicit proposition that the US is doing a better job is unacceptable. To use an analogy, just because democratic governments can become ineffective and corrupt does not mean that the concept of a democratic government is irrelevant. The alternative to a democratically elected government is dictatorship.

So whether it is an individual government or a world body, progress should be measured according to the implementation of democratic processes. Democracy encompasses as far as possible non-violent resolution of issues, consensus forging, will of the majority and respect for the minority and many more principles.
However, what has happened in Iraq shows that there is a retrogression of democracy in settling international issues.

If there are areas of weakness in the UN operations, member governments must suggest ways to tackle them. This is their responsibility to their own citizens and all citizens of the world.
It is not good enough if they are treating the UN principally as a forum for settling issues. They must look at how it is run at the bureaucratic level. The writer's accusations have certainly given us cause for concern.
Without an improved UN, big brother will likely usurp its role in policing the world. We can see how small the UN appears after the collapse of the regime in Iraq. If this trend continues, very soon more and more people will begin to believe the US is a better solution.

But that is depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere. This is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
In any case, I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it. He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.

But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel? Let's support the UN and urge member governments to treat it with more respect by improving its functions, checks and balances.
CHIA HERN KENG

NO
Depending on one nation to decide the fate of the world and the lives of citizens everywhere is going for a form of international dictatorship willingly. Do we want that to happen?
I see no serious fault in the current procedure used by the Security Council to approve military action on a member country. If the writer sees anything amiss with it, he should suggest better and democratic ways to improve it.
He may also recommend any alternative global forum to settle international issues.
But in the end the alternative will more or less be similar in purpose and role. Why re-invent the wheel?

YES
I AM pleased to finally see an honest and gutsy article ('The UN is the last thing the Iraqis need'; ST, April 16). Mr Mauro Suttora is right on the dot and if anyone disputes his report, they only have to look at the way Saddam Hussein and his regime have been living with the blessings of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme, while the Iraqi population lived in abject poverty.
The U in United Nations should read more like 'Useless' than anything else. I hope we have more articles like the above rather than the everyday wishy-washy ones that we see from AP, AFP, CNN and the gang. The credit goes to Newsweek and Mr Suttora.

WILMA ELIZABETH CHAI (MRS)