The U.N.: Forum or Kangaroo Court?

By Curtis Prendergast

Old hands around the United Nations can scarcely believe it.

For the first time in years, the U.N. has actually become a topic of conversation or argument with Americans. Last week, just as he had done the week before, U.S. Ambassador John Scali warned the delegates about "the mood of the American people" toward the U.N. In Congress that mood is particularly unfriendly.

The anger has been generated by several actions taken during the present session. To some Americans it seemed as if the U.N., with the ever growing Third World contingent in control of the General Assembly, were condoning the attitudes of a kangaroo court. First there was the invitation to the Palestine Liberation Organization to participate, virtually as a state, in the U.N.'s debate on the Palestinian problem. Then came the legally questionable resolution to expel South Africa from this year's General Assembly. Anger next spread to the world intellectual community when the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris succumbed to Arab pressure in voting two blatantly political motions against Israel (TIME, Dec. 16). Last week the General Assembly rammed through a so-called Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, overriding all objections from the industrial nations.

In each case, there were large mechanical majorities against Western positions from Third World countries. These now number some 100 (out of a total U.N. membership of 138), ranging from tiny Caribbean islands to India with its half-billion population. In U.N. maneuvering, the Third World usually is backed by China and the Soviet bloc.

Among the most alarmed by this situation are American Jews, many of whom feel that the U.N., which created Israel, is now committed to its destruction. The fears are exaggerated. The Assembly action on Palestine only confirmed for a world audience what is known in the area itself: no solution is possible in the Middle East that ignores the P.L.O. More over, the U.N. debate showed that much of the Third World, as well as Europe and the Communist bloc, still explicitly acknowledges Israel's right to exist. If both Israelis and Palestinians can some how get that message, the U.N. debate may well have helped, not hindered, prospects for a Middle East settlement.

The UNESCO discrimination against Israel, however, was in excusable. Some U.N. officials fear that the fanatic anti-Israel campaign could spread from UNESCO to other U.N. bodies, such as the Geneva-based World Health Organization and the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome. It is the Third World that most needs the U.N. and its humanitarian agencies. To the extent that bloc politics hamper the working of these bod ies, it is the Third World that will pay the price of ideology.

Third World ambassadors point out that "tyrannical" majorities are nothing new at the U.N., nor is stretching the U.N. Charter unprecedented. In November 1950, early in the Korean War, the U.S. had such a captive following that it could get Assembly sanction for U.N. military intervention in a "Uniting for Peace" resolution that neatly circumvented Soviet veto rights in the Security Council. Year after year until 1961, the U.S. blocked the U.N. from even putting membership for mainland China on the Assembly agenda. Soviet Ambassador Yakov Malik last week recalled those days of U.S. dominance: "I personally am a victim of the tyranny of the majority. I was alone in the Security Council. I protested, I complained, I objected. But the tyranny of the majority pressed upon me."

The U.S. insists that it does not object to being outvoted as such. Rather, as one American delegate charged last week, many resolutions "do not give decent consideration to the interests of the nations directly affected, and thus are fictitious solutions to serious international problems." The U.N.'s new economic charter illustrates the point. Since it provides little protection against arbitrary expropriation of foreign investment, it invites investing nations to ignore it. It also invites cynicism about the U.N. itself. Says Ambassador Scali: "Each time the Assembly adopts a resolution that it knows will not be implemented, it damages the credibility of the U.N."

The mass of U.N. resolutions passed each year (about 150) is also an invitation to mindless voting. The ambassador of one Texas-sized African nation confided that his government had instructed him: Vote with the Afro-Asians. If there is no agreed Afro-Asian position, vote with the Arabs. If there is no agreed Arab position, vote with the Arab majority.

A more serious criticism is that double standards and extremism too often prevail. Like a wartime convoy sailing at the speed of the slowest ship, the Third World position seems geared to the most intractable nation. In private, most Third World ambassadors are affable, reasonable men. But private reasonableness too often turns into public intransigence.

There are some exceptions; this year, for instance, Communist-backed resolutions on Korea (to throw the U.N. command out) and on Cambodia (to bring Prince Norodom Sihanouk's delegation in) were both defeated when the Third World split. But voting on a gut issue, like apartheid, the Third World bloc grows more monolithic.

During last week's Assembly debate, Ambassador Scali was countered by steamy rebuttals. But there were also some well-taken warnings that the situation has changed--outside as well as inside the U.N.'s glass palace. Third World countries have more than just the votes. "I come from a country which is small in size and population but very powerful in economic capabilities," said Kuwaiti Ambassador Abdalla Bishara. "Indeed, it is an example of the new realities of the day."

Yet, as Scali contends, the argument cuts both ways, and the U.N.'s new majority must live within rules acceptable to the new minority. The General Assembly is not a legislature. It can pass no laws; its effectiveness is measured by consensus. For years, the prevalent U.S. opinion has been that the U.N., as a forum, a funnel for aid, a tool for international arrangements, was doing more good than harm; this view is no longer as readily accepted. If American opinion turns against the U.N., a cut in U.S. financial support--now $460 million yearly--would be the least of the consequences. U.S. neglect or scorn would hurt the U.N. even more. Without the full participation of the world's most powerful nation, the U.N.'s claim to being a world body would be a sham. qedCurtis Prendergast

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.