& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Iraq war and the role of UN Secretary General

Many UN observers suggest that the Secretary General would have gained worldwide applause if he had resigned from his position after the attack on Iraq. His action would have reiterated boldly the UN principles and he would have been remembered as the person with the highest principle who has put the UN and justice above everything else. His resignation could have altered the course of war or world history.
THE current war on Iraq has no UN authority and therefore there is a strong view among majority of international legal experts that this Anglo-American led war against Iraq grossly violates the UN Charter and international law. Moreover it is an unprovoked and unnecessary war. The Anglo-American alliance invaded Iraq using the controversial doctrine of "preemptive attack".
War was first formally prohibited in 1928 under Kelllog-Briand Pact (US-France). In 1945 the UN Charter outlawed war to save "succeeding generations from the scourge of war" except in the case of self-defence when a country is attacked. This is because the First and Second World Wars brought untold sorrow and misery to human kind. During the First World War 16.5 million people were killed including 3.5 million civilians while during the Second World War 45 million, half of them civilians, lost their lives. Besides the loss of precious human lives another damaging aspect of war is the economic social costs for generations.
In view of the devastating effects of war on human beings, the UN Charter laid down elaborate procedures to maintain international peace and security and if a country is attacked, the UN will meet the challenge by organising collective self-defence as provided in Article 51 of the Charter.
In this connection, the role of the Secretary General of the UN is pivotal in ensuring that all member-states abide by in good faith the provisions of the Charter (Article 2.2 of the Charter). Over the years the Secretary General is considered as the conscience-keeper of UN Charter and peace in the world and every nation looks up to the Secretary General to uphold boldly the principles and purposes of the Charter.
The functions of the Secretary General are specifically enumerated in Articles 98 and 99 of the Charter. Article 98 provides that the main organs of the UN (General Assembly, the Security Council, Economic and Social Council) may entrust the Secretary General to "perform such other functions" as they deem fit. This means that the main organs of the UN
delegate their powers to the Secretary General to perform specific tasks on their behalf.
Article 99, on the other hand, is the inherent power of the Secretary General to "bring to the attention of the Security Council which in his opinion may threaten international peace and security". The phase " may threaten international peace and security" employed in Article 99 has been interpreted to mean "preservation" and not "restoration" of international peace and security.
The Secretary General constantly watches the world security situation and if there is any threat to breach of peace in any part of the world, the Secretary General sends UN envoys to reduce tension or persuades to resolve inter-state disputes peacefully. That is why the Secretary General is considered to be "the international watch guardian " to maintain peace in the world
An aspect that merits attention is Article 100 of the Charter that provides that the Secretary General shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or any other authority. This implies that the integrity of the office is not impaired.
The role of the Secretary General is intimately connected with every aspect of the functions of the UN. The Secretary General is seen as the symbol of international legality and morality. Often the personality and stature of the Secretary General influence the functions of the UN. In this connection the second UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjoeld (Swedish national) is acknowledged to be the most dynamic and innovative Secretary General of the UN. During his tenure (1954-61), many UN activities that were apparently not contemplated under
the Charter were vigorously carried out by sheer force of personality of Hammarskjoeld.
Prior to Hammarskjoeld, the interpretation of his powers under Article 99 of the Charter was given a limited and narrow view. It is he who first broadly interpreted the meaning of Article 99 in the following words at a speech at the Oxford University in 1961:
"It is Article 99 more than any other which has considered by the drafters of the Charter to have transformed the Secretary General of the UN from a purely administrative official to one with an explicit political responsibility… … . Legal scholars have observed that Article 99 not only confers upon the Secretary General a right to bring matters to the attention of the Security Council but that right carries with it, by necessary implication, a broad discretion in regard to matters which may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
Given the functions and precedents of actions of the past Secretaries General, let us now consider how the present Secretary General Kofi Annan (from Ghana) has discharged his responsibility as regards Iraq war under the Charter.
Before the war began the Secretary General said that the legality of war against Iraq without UN authority would be seriously impaired. He was right in his assessment of the situation because any unprovoked armed attack against any UN member without the UN authority was against the UN Charter. However after the war was launched, there are many questions raised as to whether the Secretary General has performed his responsibilities to uphold the spirit and letter of the Charter and it is argued that he has not for the following reasons:
First, the Secretary General has been entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security. It appears that the Secretary General did not condemn or deplore the Anglo-American war against Iraq when it was launched on 20 March. In the general debate on 26th March in the Security Council he said that many people were questioning the legitimacy of war. Many observers suggest that the statement is not good enough for the Secretary Genera because it does not express his views about the war. It is appropriate for the Secretary General to articulate explicitly his views when provisions of UN Charter (Article 2 .4 and 2.7 and Article 51) are so glaringly violated in pre-emptive attack on Iraq endangering international peace and security.
Second, the UN inspectors were stationed in Iraq pursuant to the Security Council resolution 1441 of November 2002 and it is argued that the Secretary General did not have the competence to withdraw the UN inspectors without the approval of the Security Council. Furthermore the UN military observers were withdrawn from the de-militarized zone between Kuwait and Iraq border. The Secretary General should have referred these mattes to the Council for an appropriate decision before withdrawing them. By withdrawing them there is a view that he had facilitated the Anglo-American attack.
Third, in the general debate in the Security Council on 26 March, the Secretary General raised humanitarian issues in Iraq and suggested that oil for food programme must reach to the Iraqi people. It is argued that he by-passed the principal issue , i.e. legitimacy of war. Since the humanitarian disaster was caused by the war, he should have raised the root
cause of humanitarian disaster. As Iraqi Ambassador to the UN said that the Secretary General was putting "cart before the horse". It was earlier reported in some media that the Secretary General was considering to be given the authority to spend US 1.7 billion (food for fuel) instead of Iraqi government. Many suggest that in the proposal there is an implied meaning -- the Saddam Hussein regime has lost control over Iraq. Many UN watchers would consider this proposal as gross interference in the internal affairs of Iraq.
Fourth, the Secretary General came only recently with a statement on 24 March that prisoners of war should be treated in terms of the Geneva Conventions. It may be mentioned that he appeared not to have said publicly anything when the US had categorically denied treatment of prisoners taken from Afghanistan under the Geneva Conventions and they have been rotting in the Guantanamo US military base in Cuba from any accountability. Furthermore it is believed that no such statement was issued when Iraqi prisoners of war were held by the Anglo-American forces since the second day of war (21 March). This gives an unmistakable impression that the Secretary General had not been bothered about the treatment or fate of prisoners of war from Afghanistan and Iraq under the US. Many argue that the statement from the Secretary General was only prompted when US soldiers were taken as prisoners of war by Iraq.
Conclusion
The Secretary General is elected by the General Assembly (192-members) with the recommendations of the Security Council under Article 97 of the Charter. Accordingly he represents the voice of the international community and a great responsibility devolves on him at the time of international crisis. The standing and stature of the office of the Secretary General is only tested when he is put under pressure from big powers. He has to discharge his responsibilities without fear or bias or external influence.
The Anglo-American unilateral attack has been carried out without the UN authority and thus has seriously damaged the standing and core functions of the UN as to the maintenance of international peace and security. The worldwide anti-war protests demonstrate the overwhelming global opinion against war on Iraq.
In the light of the world opinion and also in consideration of war being fought without UN authority, it is argued that the conduct of the Secretary General Kofi Annan does not match his responsibility as the custodian of the UN Charter. He is seen to be too weak to stand up to Anglo-American pressure. Many UN observers suggest that the Secretary General would have gained worldwide applause if he had resigned from his position after the attack on Iraq. His action would have reiterated boldly the UN principles and he would have been remembered as the person with the highest principle who has put the UN and justice above everything else. His resignation could have altered the course of war or world history.
Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.