Let us Cooperate With a Life-Sized United Nations
AKASHI Yasushi / former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
December 9, 2003
Since America launched its war against Iraq without waiting for another resolution by the Security Council, the United Nations has been subjected to varying degrees of praise and criticism. While some advocate a course of cooperation with the United Nations, others claim it has become obsolete.
This brings back memories of autumn 1956, the year Japan joined the United Nations. That year, Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly were held one after another to discuss the Suez Crisis and the Soviet intervention in Hungary. When the first U.N. Emergency Force was organized, enabling the British and French forces to withdraw from the Suez, the United Nations stood tall and proud for having recovered peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, no nation had the stomach to challenge the Soviet Union in its military intervention in Hungary by force, leaving the United Nations with a bitter taste of defeat.
For the United Nations, which is neither a world government nor a world federation, its success or failure depends on whether major member countries are united in their support. The success of its PKO (Peace-Keeping Operation) in Cambodia and the disappointing outcome of its PKO in the former Yugoslavia depended on whether parties involved in the conflict shared a determination for peace and whether there was unity among major countries. If a deep rift exists among Permanent Members of the Security Council, it will lead either to no resolution at all, or an ambiguous resolution that fails to serve as a clear guideline for field operations, turning PKO activities into a scapegoat for the Security Council. The tragic mass genocide in Rwanda became unavoidable when America and the others opposed a further expansion of PKO activity.
As more problems become global issues that cannot be resolved by national governments alone, the United Nations is expanding its scope of action. However, it cannot ignore the sovereign right of each member country. Enormous as the powers entrusted to the Security Council may be, it cannot transcend the principle of great power unanimity among major nations. The desired course of action would be to adopt a long-term perspective on national interests and to make use of the United Nations in a dynamic manner based on a full understanding of the limitations and restrictions governing it.
Japan and America are similar in the sense that they experience violent swings in their policy towards the United Nations. In post-World War II Japan, miserable memories of the war gave rise to strong pacifist inclinations and high hopes for the United Nations. And when the United Nation fails to live up to its expected purpose, the disillusionment manifests itself at times as charges of obsolescence.
America has traditionally held deep "love and hate" sentiments towards the United Nations, swinging between exaggerated praise and excessively harsh criticism. The supremacist ideology of a nation borne on the new continent based on pure political principles and the unilateralism of a superpower combine to produce a tendency to see a United Nations endowed with excessive power as an extension of Washington with overbearing authority. American isolationists shiver at the thought of massive U.N. PKO forces arriving on their "black helicopters", while in reality United Nations problems are more due to the lack of its power.
Lately, Japan's own views towards the United Nations has increasingly taken on shades of resentment due to the difficulty of becoming a Permanent Member, the "former enemy clause" that remains in the U.N. Charter and the excessively heavy burden of its budgetary contribution. With regard to the budget allocation, while there may be some time lag the amount is approaching parity to Japan's global economic activity as measured by average GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in recent years, making any hasty response unwarranted. The "former enemy clause" has been described as "anachronistic" in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1995 and has effectively become a dead letter. Among countries involved such as Germany, none consider it an issue. Neither does it pose any impediment to Japan's activities within the United Nations. The size of budgetary contribution alone cannot promise a seat of a Permanent Member; extending Japan's role far and wide to various U.N. activities and winning respect and appreciation remains the only path to becoming a Permanent Member of the Security Council.
While recent criticism may be useful as an antidote against excessive glorification and deification of the United Nations, it would be extremely dangerous to be influenced by the opinions and one-sided evidence presented by ultra-rightist organizations in America. The desirable course would be to face up to the reality of the United Nations which, far from being perfect, has in fact many flaws, and to conduct honest discussions based on objective evidence and analysis. Despite the occasional distortions, the United Nations is still a mirror that reflects the international community. No adult would destroy a mirror because the reflection found in it was ugly. It is also wrong to take out pent-up frustration caused by a divided Security Council on the Secretary General or the Secretariat. While the inefficiencies and excesses of the international bureaucracy must be pointed out without reservations, no contradiction exists between a United Nations that strives to be the rule-setter for the international community and provides crisis management, and Japan's own endeavours for adjusting to globalization.
The writer is former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Vice Chairman of the English-Speaking Union of Japan. He contributed this comment to the Sankei Shimbun.
This brings back memories of autumn 1956, the year Japan joined the United Nations. That year, Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly were held one after another to discuss the Suez Crisis and the Soviet intervention in Hungary. When the first U.N. Emergency Force was organized, enabling the British and French forces to withdraw from the Suez, the United Nations stood tall and proud for having recovered peace in the Middle East. On the other hand, no nation had the stomach to challenge the Soviet Union in its military intervention in Hungary by force, leaving the United Nations with a bitter taste of defeat.
For the United Nations, which is neither a world government nor a world federation, its success or failure depends on whether major member countries are united in their support. The success of its PKO (Peace-Keeping Operation) in Cambodia and the disappointing outcome of its PKO in the former Yugoslavia depended on whether parties involved in the conflict shared a determination for peace and whether there was unity among major countries. If a deep rift exists among Permanent Members of the Security Council, it will lead either to no resolution at all, or an ambiguous resolution that fails to serve as a clear guideline for field operations, turning PKO activities into a scapegoat for the Security Council. The tragic mass genocide in Rwanda became unavoidable when America and the others opposed a further expansion of PKO activity.
As more problems become global issues that cannot be resolved by national governments alone, the United Nations is expanding its scope of action. However, it cannot ignore the sovereign right of each member country. Enormous as the powers entrusted to the Security Council may be, it cannot transcend the principle of great power unanimity among major nations. The desired course of action would be to adopt a long-term perspective on national interests and to make use of the United Nations in a dynamic manner based on a full understanding of the limitations and restrictions governing it.
Japan and America are similar in the sense that they experience violent swings in their policy towards the United Nations. In post-World War II Japan, miserable memories of the war gave rise to strong pacifist inclinations and high hopes for the United Nations. And when the United Nation fails to live up to its expected purpose, the disillusionment manifests itself at times as charges of obsolescence.
America has traditionally held deep "love and hate" sentiments towards the United Nations, swinging between exaggerated praise and excessively harsh criticism. The supremacist ideology of a nation borne on the new continent based on pure political principles and the unilateralism of a superpower combine to produce a tendency to see a United Nations endowed with excessive power as an extension of Washington with overbearing authority. American isolationists shiver at the thought of massive U.N. PKO forces arriving on their "black helicopters", while in reality United Nations problems are more due to the lack of its power.
Lately, Japan's own views towards the United Nations has increasingly taken on shades of resentment due to the difficulty of becoming a Permanent Member, the "former enemy clause" that remains in the U.N. Charter and the excessively heavy burden of its budgetary contribution. With regard to the budget allocation, while there may be some time lag the amount is approaching parity to Japan's global economic activity as measured by average GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in recent years, making any hasty response unwarranted. The "former enemy clause" has been described as "anachronistic" in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1995 and has effectively become a dead letter. Among countries involved such as Germany, none consider it an issue. Neither does it pose any impediment to Japan's activities within the United Nations. The size of budgetary contribution alone cannot promise a seat of a Permanent Member; extending Japan's role far and wide to various U.N. activities and winning respect and appreciation remains the only path to becoming a Permanent Member of the Security Council.
While recent criticism may be useful as an antidote against excessive glorification and deification of the United Nations, it would be extremely dangerous to be influenced by the opinions and one-sided evidence presented by ultra-rightist organizations in America. The desirable course would be to face up to the reality of the United Nations which, far from being perfect, has in fact many flaws, and to conduct honest discussions based on objective evidence and analysis. Despite the occasional distortions, the United Nations is still a mirror that reflects the international community. No adult would destroy a mirror because the reflection found in it was ugly. It is also wrong to take out pent-up frustration caused by a divided Security Council on the Secretary General or the Secretariat. While the inefficiencies and excesses of the international bureaucracy must be pointed out without reservations, no contradiction exists between a United Nations that strives to be the rule-setter for the international community and provides crisis management, and Japan's own endeavours for adjusting to globalization.
The writer is former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and Vice Chairman of the English-Speaking Union of Japan. He contributed this comment to the Sankei Shimbun.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
等身大の国連に積極的に協力しよう
明石 康 / 元国連事務次長
2003年 12月 9日
国連安保理の新しい決議を待たずに、アメリカがイラク戦争を開始したことをきっかけに、国連の毀誉褒貶が盛んである。国連重視の協調路線を説く人もいれば、国連無用論も叫ばれている。
わが国が国連に加盟した1956年秋、スエズ危機とソ運のハンガリー介入をめぐり、緊急特別総会が次々に招集されたことを思い出す。スエズに関し国連緊急軍が設立されて、英仏軍の撤退が可能となり、中東の平和を回復した国連の姿は輝かしかった。他方、ソ連軍によるハンガリー武力介入に実力で挑戦する決意はどの国にもなく、国連は挫折感をかみしめるに終わった。
世界政府でも世界連邦でもない国連としては、主要な加盟国が結束して支持してくれるかが成否を分ける。国連のカンボジアPKO(平和維持活動)が成功し、旧ユーゴのPKOが失意に終わったのは、紛争当事者の間に平和への決意があったかどうかと、主要国の間に団結があったかによるものだった。常任理事国の間に深い亀裂があると、決議が採択されないか、曖昧模糊とした決議が現地活動の指針になりえないままに、PKO活動が安保理の身代わりの山羊にされてしまう。ルワンダで大量大虐殺の悲劇が不可避になったのは、アメリカなどがPKOの拡大に反対したためだった。
より多くの間題が各国政府の解決できない地球的な課題になっていく中で、国連の行動範囲は拡大している。しかし、各加盟国の主権は無視できない。安保理の権限は強大とはいえ、大国一致の原則を超えられない。だから国連の置かれている限界や制約を十分にわきまえたうえで、長期的国益の見地にたって、これを弾力的に活用する発想が望まれる。
国連評価のものさしが烈しくぶれる点で、わが国とアメリカは似ている。戦後日本では悲惨な戦争体験が強い平和志向と国連願望をもたらした。期待通りに国連が機能しないと、失望は時に無用論に転化する。
アメリカは伝統的に国連への愛憎の念が深く、過大な評価から烈しすぎる批判へと揺れ動く。新大陸で純粋な政治理念の下に発足した国の至上主義と超大国としての一国主義が結びつき、ワシントンヘの権力集中の延長線上に肥大化する国連を見てしまうことになる。国連は弱すぎるのが問題なのに、アメリカの孤立主義者たちは「黒いヘリコプター」に乗ってくる巨大な国連PKOを想像してぞっとする。最近わが国の国連観は、常任理事国入りが容易でないこと、国連憲章に「敵国条項」が残っていること、予算分担額が多すぎることなどから、恨みがましい傾向を強めている。予算分担額は、多少のタイムラグがあっても、わが国の近年平均GDP（国内総生産）比率にほぼ近づいていくので、せっかちな対応は禁物である。「敵国条項」は95年の総会決議でも「時代錯誤」とされ、死文化している。ドイツなど関係国で、この条項を間題にする国は一国もない。日本の国連活動への障害でもない。分担金の大きさだけで常任理事国になりうるものでもなく、国連諸活動に幅広く寄与を重ね、声望を高めていくしか、安保理常任理事国への道はない。
最近の国連批判は、過度な国連礼賛や神格化に対する解毒剤として役立つとはいえ、アメリカの極右団体の意見や一方的資料に引きずられるのは、甚だ危険である。完壁でないどころか、欠陥の多い国連を直視し、客観的な資料と分析に基づいて、率直な議論を重ねることが望まれる。時としてゆがみがあっても、国連は国際社会を映す鏡といえよう。鏡に映る自分が醜いからといって、それを壊す大人はいない。分裂する安保理への不満から、事務総長や事務局に八つ当たりするのもおかしい。国際官僚制の非能率や無駄は遠慮なく指摘すべきだが、国際社会が必要とするルール作りと危機管理に向かって努力を重ねる国連と、グローバル化への適応に励むわが国との間に矛盾はない。
（筆者は元国連事務次長、当連盟副会長。この原稿は産経新聞に掲載されたものです。）
わが国が国連に加盟した1956年秋、スエズ危機とソ運のハンガリー介入をめぐり、緊急特別総会が次々に招集されたことを思い出す。スエズに関し国連緊急軍が設立されて、英仏軍の撤退が可能となり、中東の平和を回復した国連の姿は輝かしかった。他方、ソ連軍によるハンガリー武力介入に実力で挑戦する決意はどの国にもなく、国連は挫折感をかみしめるに終わった。
世界政府でも世界連邦でもない国連としては、主要な加盟国が結束して支持してくれるかが成否を分ける。国連のカンボジアPKO(平和維持活動)が成功し、旧ユーゴのPKOが失意に終わったのは、紛争当事者の間に平和への決意があったかどうかと、主要国の間に団結があったかによるものだった。常任理事国の間に深い亀裂があると、決議が採択されないか、曖昧模糊とした決議が現地活動の指針になりえないままに、PKO活動が安保理の身代わりの山羊にされてしまう。ルワンダで大量大虐殺の悲劇が不可避になったのは、アメリカなどがPKOの拡大に反対したためだった。
より多くの間題が各国政府の解決できない地球的な課題になっていく中で、国連の行動範囲は拡大している。しかし、各加盟国の主権は無視できない。安保理の権限は強大とはいえ、大国一致の原則を超えられない。だから国連の置かれている限界や制約を十分にわきまえたうえで、長期的国益の見地にたって、これを弾力的に活用する発想が望まれる。
国連評価のものさしが烈しくぶれる点で、わが国とアメリカは似ている。戦後日本では悲惨な戦争体験が強い平和志向と国連願望をもたらした。期待通りに国連が機能しないと、失望は時に無用論に転化する。
アメリカは伝統的に国連への愛憎の念が深く、過大な評価から烈しすぎる批判へと揺れ動く。新大陸で純粋な政治理念の下に発足した国の至上主義と超大国としての一国主義が結びつき、ワシントンヘの権力集中の延長線上に肥大化する国連を見てしまうことになる。国連は弱すぎるのが問題なのに、アメリカの孤立主義者たちは「黒いヘリコプター」に乗ってくる巨大な国連PKOを想像してぞっとする。最近わが国の国連観は、常任理事国入りが容易でないこと、国連憲章に「敵国条項」が残っていること、予算分担額が多すぎることなどから、恨みがましい傾向を強めている。予算分担額は、多少のタイムラグがあっても、わが国の近年平均GDP（国内総生産）比率にほぼ近づいていくので、せっかちな対応は禁物である。「敵国条項」は95年の総会決議でも「時代錯誤」とされ、死文化している。ドイツなど関係国で、この条項を間題にする国は一国もない。日本の国連活動への障害でもない。分担金の大きさだけで常任理事国になりうるものでもなく、国連諸活動に幅広く寄与を重ね、声望を高めていくしか、安保理常任理事国への道はない。
最近の国連批判は、過度な国連礼賛や神格化に対する解毒剤として役立つとはいえ、アメリカの極右団体の意見や一方的資料に引きずられるのは、甚だ危険である。完壁でないどころか、欠陥の多い国連を直視し、客観的な資料と分析に基づいて、率直な議論を重ねることが望まれる。時としてゆがみがあっても、国連は国際社会を映す鏡といえよう。鏡に映る自分が醜いからといって、それを壊す大人はいない。分裂する安保理への不満から、事務総長や事務局に八つ当たりするのもおかしい。国際官僚制の非能率や無駄は遠慮なく指摘すべきだが、国際社会が必要とするルール作りと危機管理に向かって努力を重ねる国連と、グローバル化への適応に励むわが国との間に矛盾はない。
（筆者は元国連事務次長、当連盟副会長。この原稿は産経新聞に掲載されたものです。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟