Stephen Vasciannie THE UNITED Nations is partly a creation of the United States of America. Following World War II, and even before the end of that war, the United States, through President Roosevelt, had committed itself to an international organisation with the primary purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
The story has it that Harry S. Truman was sworn in as President of the United States at 7:09 p.m. on April 12, 1945 by Chief Justice Harlan Stone. Truman had asked the members of the Roosevelt cabinet to remain behind following the swearing-in ceremony so that he could ask them to continue on the job, notwithstanding Roosevelt's passing.
Before the new President Truman could address the group, however, he was asked whether the proposed San Francisco Conference on the United Nations would proceed as originally planned. Truman's response is quoted in Stanley Meisler's book, United Nations: The First Fifty Years: "I said it most certainly was. I said it was what Roosevelt would have wanted, and it had to take place if we were to keep the peace. And that's the first decision I made as President of the United States" (pages 2 to 3).
Thus, the Dumbarton Oaks Confer-ence, the San Francisco Conference, and the presidencies of Roosevelt and Truman are parts of the American story concerning the United Nations. Underlying the story was the desire to learn from the mistakes of the League of Nations which suffered significantly from non-membership of the United States and to put in place an international regime which would pay due regard to principles of international law and morality.
SPECIAL RIGHTS
At the same time, though, the main participants in the formation of the United Nations remained sensitive to the power realities which prevailed in the international community in the aftermath of World War II; and so, it is not surprising that the scheme established under the United Nations Charter gave special rights to the militarily powerful.
Thus, in summary form, the United Nations Charter set up the Security Council as the organ with primary responsibility for international peace and security. Five permanent members of the Security Council were selected, and these permanent members were given the power to veto all decisions contemplated by the Council.
The permanent members the United States, USSR, United Kingdom, France and China were meant to represent different points of great power in the international system; but they also represented the idea that the defeated axis powers, especially Ger-many and Japan, should have no special place in the deliberations of the United Nations -- even though, in power terms, they could arguably have matched some of the victorious Allied countries given a permanent spot in the Security Council.
So we know, then, that the structure of the United Nations is not built only on the foundations of morality and principled humanitarianism. Perhaps, though, only the unrealistic purist would expect morality and humanitarianism to be the only factors at work in the creation of an international organisation immediately following a major war.
SERIOUS MEASURES
Victorious states in military confrontations expect spoils, including institutional arrangements to their advantage; and, particularly when they can convince themselves that their actions are driven by laudable motives the institutional structures can be rationalised as part of the effort to ensure that the immoral enemy could not re-emerge. Hitler and company were unquestionably responsible for the Holocaust, the unspeakable barbarity of which justified serious measures to give control to the Allied powers.
In the years since the establishment of the United Nations, relations between that organisation and the United States have been variable. In the initial stages of the Cold War, for instance, there was some evidence to the effect that American leadership was taken for granted by most United Nations member States. But, as the Cold War matured, and as proxy wars sprang up in various parts of the world, American leadership lost some of its lustre, and indeed, in a number of instances, the USA was clearly responsible for backing their "SOB" at the expense of principles of self-determination and respect for the popular will.
PAX AMERICANA
With the end of the Cold War, though, the stage was once again set for American dominance in the Security Council, with at least some analysts expecting Russia, Britain, and France to show deference to the only remaining superpower. On this view as well, China was perceived as an emerging counterfoil, but all too taken up with internal issues in the short run to challenge American perspectives within the United Nations. And, similarly, as part of the Pax Americana, member states in the General Assembly would not be expected, in the minds of some writers, to confront the United States on issues of international importance.
As we have seen, however, the world envisaged by some analysts is somewhat elusive. With reference to the current confrontation in Iraq, various countries have publicly challenged American perspectives both within the United Nations and without, and one has the distinct sense that the United States has actually increased its sense of isolation at the United Nations in recent months.This has happened because the American administration decided to act unilaterally over Iraq, or at least to act without the approval of the Security Council. Now that the formal battle for Baghdad seems to be over, the United States will now have to intensify its efforts to win the support of the international community for the peace initiatives. If this is not done, the United Nations ideal - supported by the first decision of President Truman - could be severely damaged.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the University of the West Indies.
