Kommersant : Emerging Nations Take Their Shoes Off

Emerging Nations Take Their Shoes Off

The anti-American coalition is shaping its ideology

September 22, 2006

Scandal-tainted backdrop of the 61st session of the UN General Assembly is an indication of turmoil in the world. Hugo Chavez’s buffoon anti-American speech reminds of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe against the table at the United Nations. It is not an accidental reference. After the Socialist camp collapsed, the United States and its allies in Europe have become the dominant political and, more importantly, ideological power in the world. Developing countries have not always been pleased with it. They would often resist, but they did not have a decent political platform to make an alternative for the doctrine of the West. The situation has changed, though. It is quite possible that we will see the United Nations split into two blocs again, with the non-aligned maneuvering between them.

In fact, it was the United States that launched an ideological attack on the United Nations before the Iraq invasion. Later, the U.S. blocked a reform suggested by UN Secretary General Kofi Anna and appointed John Bolton, a staunch critic of the organization, to represent the country. This summer, UN Deputy Secretary General Mark Malloch Brown defined relations between the United States and the United Nations as “an unhappy marriage” and accused the U.S. of unwillingness to meet the UN halfway and blackmailing the organization by withholding payments which account for more than 20 percent of the UN budget. John Bolton called Mark Malloch Brown’s words “the worst mistake by a senior UN official and warned that it could bring irreparable damage to the organization. This went double for corruption scandals involving UN officials.

Yet, this is just a cover which hides profound and ever-growing ideological discords. The heart of the disagreements can be found in a number of reports which were published before the 61st session, criticizing UN activities over the last few years.

“At the United Nations – an organization established to enshrine the universal understanding of freedom and human rights – the very idea of freedom is being vigorously challenged and even discouraged,” a report of Heritage Foundation says. Principles that the UN uses in practice are often conflicting. For example, it has included Cuba and Syria on the UN Human Rights Commission, which is, on the one hand, the enforcement of the principle of equal rights for all members. But on the other hand, it is a mockery of the Declaration of Human Right, which makes it merely a sheet of paper.

The UN’s striving to work out an overly strict system of international law is the second point that comes in for sharp criticism in Heritage Foundation’s report. “States are free to enter or leave international agreements as they perceive it in their national interest to do so,” reads the report. The latter statement refers to the right of using military force without a UN approval.

The Cato Institute focused in its report on economic preferences of UN leaders. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had published a few reports before the Cato Institute’s research, casting doubt on traditional market and liberal methods of economic modernization. The report’s writers noted that liberal ideology has been limiting a set of tools available for a number of nations. What is more, experts at the UNCTAD lambasted globalization itself. They believe that globalization has created even a greater gap between poor and rich nations. Only China and Vietnam has won from it. Experts of the UNCTAD conclude that quick liberal reforms are harmful, referring to China as an example of successful modernization. The Cato Institute’s report, which came as a response to the UNCTAD, regrets that ideas of planned economy and collectivism have not died together with the USSR. “Nowadays, the United Nations is the last bastion of collectivist fantasies,” the drafters say.

Apparently, both the economic view of the UNCTAD and an idea of state sovereignty having priority over human rights are expressing a viewpoint of emerging nations and are aimed against the U.S. economic and foreign policy doctrine. Furthermore, they partly echo (both in terms of policies and economics) debates of the Cold War. The only news here is that this ideological platform is becoming popular and internationally recognized again. It is acquiring features of a profoundly renewed anti-liberal doctrine which unites anti-American opposition.

Ironically enough, the United States now needs the United Nations much more than it did when launching an attack on the organization. Fierce criticism of the anti-American bloc results from a growing role of the United Nations for the Americans. “The United Nations is the only international institution which is legitimate enough. And the United States are now more concerned about the legitimacy of their actions than they were two or three years ago,” Dmitry Trenin, chairperson of the expert council at the Moscow Carnegie Center, says. So, the battle for the UN is yet to come, so are tough demarches, artistic tricks and heated debates which the world has not seen since the Cold War.