WORLDWIDE HOPE

Every year, the world watches the spectacular and exciting political show staged in what is perhaps the greatest of all the cities to exist on Earth, New York.  And this September too, the "capital of the world" hosted more than 120 presidents, monarchs and prime ministers, three vice presidents, eight deputy prime ministers and 55 foreign ministers. They were there to attend the UN General Assembly and not only listened to each other's speeches for several days, but also discussed more than 160 of the most important issues of global politics, including the situation in the Near East and in Afghanistan, as well as more global problems like peace and security, the war against terrorism, environmental issues, health care, disarmament, human rights, security at sea and so on.

The goals of the UN, which was founded in the immediate aftermath of the WWII by decision of 50 countries, were described very clearly:  "To maintain international peace and security and, to that end... to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace...  To develop friendly relations between nations, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples...  To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."

Indeed, if all this had really been put into practice, Earth would soon have become a paradise...

There is no denying, of course, that the world has become a better place over the last 65 years.  But alas, humanity is as far away from the above ideals as a snail is from the Moon.  During the period since the creation of the UN, mankind has more than once teetered on the brink of a new world war.  No one is guaranteeing against that even now.  The environmental problems of our planet worsen every year, and at a fast pace, and millions of people die of hunger, illnesses and various crimes.  As for the notion of "human rights," it signifies nothing to the majority of the planet's population.

But people are more willing to say that the glass is half-full than to say that it is half-empty.  That the UN survived the Cold War, with its Cuban missile crisis, wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and the legendary loud banging of a certain boot against the main podium of the General Assembly, and even the first decade of the new century, is in itself a very good sign.  After all, no better alternative to the UN has been invented yet.

The most important issue is that the UN does not follow in the footsteps of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which mainly promoted the interests of Europe (that is, the West)  - and the so-called "colonies" - most of the countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Near East - were left to their own devices.  There are quite a few countries which are dissatisfied with the UN now, and with the fact that the main decisions of its main body, the Security Council, are taken by only five nations (Britain, China, Russia (the de-factor successor of the USSR), the United States and France).  There has been talk for a long time that the Security Council must include India, Brazil and, perhaps, Japan and a number of other countries, while the French and British missions should be replaced by one from the EU.

As a result, together with the problem of improving the effectiveness of the organisation's work in general, discussions which began during previous sessions about reform of the UN Security Council, whose resolutions are obligatory, continue from year from year.  Incidentally, among their methods of enforcement, besides sanctions, is the employment of collective military measures...  We must not forget this.

On the one hand, they say that the small number of permanent members of the Security Council enables it to work quickly.  But on the other hand, the increasing number of experts and politicians agree that too much time has passed since the end of the WWII and that today's "Big Five" do not accurately reflect the real balance of power in the international arena.

This year, the scandalous and eccentric Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi made that statement in the most radical way, when he pointed to the inequality between UN members and said that the Security Council was entirely under the control of the five permanent members.  After that, he threw away the UN Charter book, noting that the right of veto and permanent membership of the Security Council contradict the charter and represent an instance of political feudalism.

Let us put aside the none-too-positive image of Gaddafi himself, and admit there is logic in his statement.  Indeed, practically unlimited use of the right of veto sometimes effectively paralyzes the work of the Security Council and also draws a lot of criticism.  And it has to be noted that the veto is often used not according to the causes or effects of the situation in question, but depending on the nature of relations between the five nations.  The countries which are discussed in resolutions in this case resemble small pawns in their "great game."

At the same time, it is clear that the future of the UN depends on how serious the leading international powers, and especially the United States, are about the organization.  Otherwise, other countries' trust in the organization will be undermined.

The issue of compliance by some nations with UN Security Council rulings is also a serious one.  As is known, Armenia has not complied with some of its resolutions but has never been held accountable...

Perhaps the clearest example of what appears to be either the uncoordinated position of the UN Security Council or its lack of effectiveness is the situation concerning the Iranian nuclear programme.  As different media report, the secret service staffers who protect the US president had to watch the movements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the General Assembly to avoid an accidental meeting with their boss, President Barack Obama.  How the situation with Iran unfolds will become clear in early October, when representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran will meet with the negotiators' group of six (five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany).

The Iranian president himself, as always, managed to achieve the departure of the French and US delegations from the General Assembly hall during his speech.  This time, the reason was Ahmadinejad's statement that the "The engine of unbridled capitalism with its unfair system of thought has reached the end of the road and is unable to move" and that "By the grace of God, Marxism is gone. It is now history. Expansionist capitalism will certainly have the same fate."  The Iranian leader decided not to touch on the Iranian nuclear problem in his speech, although he did note that Tehran is "prepared to warmly shake all those hands which are extended to us honestly" and to work with all nations to safeguard international security.  Ahmadinejad decided not to specify whether or not Iran itself is going to be "honest..."

However, if the talks in early October fail, new sanctions await Iran in addition to the old ones.  There are no signs for now, however, that Tehran is willing to cede its positions under pressure from the international community - it continues to claim that its nuclear programme is peaceful.

It is clear, against this backdrop that, to rebuild hopes of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear programme crisis, it is necessary to at least achieve consensus among members of the Security Council.

"I told Barack Obama today that we deem it necessary to help Iran reach the right decision.  As for sanctions against Iran, Russia's position on this issue is simple:  sanctions rarely lead to productive results; in some cases they are inevitable, but this is a matter of choice," Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev said after a meeting with Obama.  There is much talk at present about US concessions to Moscow and about Obama's tests for President Medvedev...  However, there is another factor:  will China follow Russia's example if one is set?  And Moscow itself has not said anything decisive on this subject.  After all, a normalization of relations between the West and Iran is not really in Russia's interests:  a huge "slice of hydrocarbon " is at stake...

The Arab-Israeli conflict has also many times led the Security Council into impasse.  Trilateral talks were held between the leaders of the United States, Israel and Palestine during the 64th General Assembly in New York.  Observers say that Obama looked somewhat irritated after the talks.

"We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back.  Success depends on all sides' acting with a sense of urgency.  It is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved.  It is not only critical for the Israelis and Palestinians, it is critical for the rest of the world," stressed the US president.

It has to be noted that the Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, condemned the talks in New York, noting that the chairman of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), Mahmoud Abbas, "cannot represent the entire Palestinian people."

A Security Council summit on disarmament issues and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was also organized at the UN headquarters.  US President Barack Obama presided over a UN Security Council session for the first time:  Obama chaired the session as the head of the state presiding at the Security Council in September.  So, this September, for the fifth time since 1945, the UN Security Council held a session at the level of heads of state.  The session did not touch on specific issues:  leaders of the world's foremost powers discussed global approaches to tackling problems in this area.  The 15 Security Council members voted unanimously for a US-proposed resolution which sets out the fundamental principles of nuclear disarmament and urges the creation of a world free of nuclear weapons.  Obama is certain that the Security Council has the "authority and responsibility" to react to violations of the non-proliferation treaty.

So, events at the latest UN General Assembly were pleasingly proactive and seemed to be driven by a desire for real change.  Obama, Medvedev and other leaders spoke in support of strengthening UN institutions, noting that, at present, the UN is the only mechanism, without any alternative, which makes it possible to at least manage the complex system of international relations to some effect.

It is notable that, in the opinion of some observers, Obama effectively rejected a unipolar world system and asked his allies for help in addressing global problems.  For example, although the US president stressed that his country will continue to support the right to self-determination, he also said democracy cannot be brought to a country from outside and that every country must look for its own way, while "none of the ways is perfect."  This is in dramatic contrast, is it not, to the George Bush administration, which was dubbed the "democracy exporter"? 

Obama seems to have the same problems as the preceding US Administration.  But he seems to be inclined towards compromise and less aggressive solutions.  However, the national interests of all nations, and the United States is a leader here, still prevail over the interests of mankind...

Obama discussed approaches which could help shape the "future which we want for our children" - nuclear disarmament, a healthy environment, strong economies.  And, indeed, it is unlikely that anyone in the world wants his or her children to face the scenarios of Hollywood catastrophe movies about the future of our planet, in which mad robots and miserable mutant remnants of the human species roam scorched landscapes.  Perhaps this realization will help present-day politicians to be more tolerant and responsible?

The problems facing humanity require a collective approach:  the financial and economic crisis which affected practically all countries on the planet, environmental problems, energy security issues and the fight against terrorism all testify to this.  Of course, there will be coalitions of countries with similar interests but, at the same time, all types of regimes and every nation on the planet must realize that if everyone continues to act on their own, everyone will lose.