Inside the glass house

NEW YORK -- Madeleine Albright, a one-time US Secretary of State and a some-time US Ambassador to the United Nations, famously remarked in 1995 that "the UN is a tool of American foreign policy." She was going public with a political reality check of our times.

And addressing the General Assembly in September 2002, six months before the US strike on Iraq, President George W. Bush made an unsuccessful plea for Security Council authorization for the disastrous American military invasion that took place on March 2003.

But the plea was accompanied by an implicit warning: "Will the UN serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" Bush asked. Irrelevant, we presume, if the UN failed to support the American invasion. But support, it didn't.

Albright, a Democrat, and Bush, a Republican, proved that irrespective of the political party in power, the US has always sought to manipulate the world body to protect and advance its own national interests.

The Clinton administration, under which Albright served, was a strong supporter of multilateralism compared with the Bush administration which has remained avowedly unilateral while expressing contempt for international treaties and UN conventions.

Still, both administrations, like most previous US administrations, always sought a pliable world body doing the American bidding. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan plucked up courage to declare the US war on Iraq "illegal," primarily because it did not have the imprimatur of the Security Council.

But the present Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, considered more amenable to US pressure, continues to come under criticism for playing political footsie with the Americans.

As the Iraqi debacle keeps haunting the UN, Ban keeps ducking the question whether or not the American use of force against Iraq defied international law and the UN charter. Responding to a question that refuses to die, he said last week that "it is crucial to focus on the war-wracked nation's future rather than dwell on the past." An easy way out.

The recent attacks on UN offices and UN peacekeepers are also being increasingly construed as attacks on an organisation which is being manipulated by Western nations, and particularly the US.

Conscious of the sudden wave of anti-UN sentiments, the Secretary-General told reporters at this year's first press conference: "The United Nations is not working for any group of nations over another. The United Nations is working for the benefit and well-being of many developing countries; we are working for the promotion of human rights and peace and security. So, this must be correctly understood and communicated to the world."

If what he is saying sounds sensible, the UN has so far failed to communicate this message to the rest of the world, specifically the Middle East, where the world body is perceived as promoting US interests.And as if adding fuel to the fire, Ban made the supreme mistake of saying he was glad to be in Israel during a recent visit to the disputed east Jerusalem, thereby antagonizing Palestinians.

When Bush made a case to invade Iraq -- arguing that it continued to violate Security Council resolutions-- he told the General Assembly in September 2002: "Are Security Council resolutions to be honoured and enforced or cast aside without consequences?" But Bush little realized that one of the serial offenders accused of continuously violating UN resolutions is one of America's trusted ally, Israel.

In occupied Palestine, says Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies, Israel is on a daily basis violating international law and dozens of specific UN resolutions -- including ostensibly binding Security Council decisions -- regarding return of refugees, the illegality of settlements (all settlements, not only those deemed illegal by Israel's own government), the status of Jerusalem, and more.

On the other hand, the U.S. itself stands in stark violation of international legal prohibitions against the use of torture and the "extraordinary rendition" programme that enables it, holding prisoners without trial, violating Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

She says the UN's already weakened legitimacy can only be rebuilt if it at least begins to hold those violating governments accountable -- challenging the current reality of power-based double standards in which the U.S., other powerful countries, and those countries they support (such as Israel) are protected from accountability.

But Ban, who is perceived as being too close to the US, is not likely to rock the political boat. He says he is no American stooge.
The only standard response from him is that the 15-member Security Council, including the Big Five, namely the US, the UK, France, China and Russia, "unanimously recommended" his nomination for approval by the 192-member General Assembly. Nobody really knows how many of those 192 countries have had second thoughts about their judgment.

Ban booms for Uncle Sam