A LOT OF HOT AIR...

The general political discussion at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly, attended by up to 100 heads of state and government, seems to have only heightened the tension in international relations. Many experts think that the world political system has reached a watershed - the rules that were achieved with so much effort at the end of the Second World War, when practically the whole planet was divided into two hostile camps, are disintegrating. At least there was some certainty during the cold war. Now there is complete confusion and it is very difficult to work out who is whose ally or opponent. The recent, five-day Russo-Georgian war was a moment of truth for many countries. Events in the Caucasus eclipsed all the other news in the most popular holiday month, even during the Olympics. Politicians and diplomats began to shuttle back and forth at dizzying speeds for talks and consultations, accusations rained down of violating commonly accepted international standards and, unfortunately, once again the tanks and automatic weapons had the last word. It all took place against the background of the international financial crisis, when states, divided by their national interests, admitted with shocking candour that they are bound to one another by what, unfortunately, remains the holy of holies of life on earth, money. This just increased annoyance with one another.

So the get-together in New York was an incredibly timely event. This year as last, the General Assembly podium was a convenient place for politicians to express their deepest concerns. But this international talking-shop can hardly do the UN any good. The international institution is now a long way away from playing the role that was envisaged for it when it was created - it is no longer a place to settle the world's problems, it is practically incapable of resolving or preventing conflicts and it is clearly not managing to promote friendly relations between nations. 

The permanent members of the Security Council (Russia, the USA, China, France and Great Britain), that is, the UN body that deals with peace and security issues, have very different goals and value systems - they are very bad at reaching agreement amongst themselves. There is no need to explain why UN member states that are obliged to obey Security Council decisions are in no hurry to do so. 

There has been talk for a long time of the need to extend the number of permanent members of the Security Council and the presidents of Slovenia and Portugal, Danilo Turk and Anibal Cavaco Silva, referred to this during the debates. The Slovene leader thinks that "the world community is dragging its feet in reforming international structures to support peace and security". However, there is no shortage of doubts that this step would be effective.

In his speech to the General Assembly, US President George Bush spoke of the need to strengthen the role of the UN in the new realities of the 21st century. He is convinced that today mankind needs the international organization more than ever. The American leader's speech received a lot of attention because it is the USA that is most often accused of ignoring the UN's opinion. 

However, this time it was Russia that was accused of destructive action against the UN when it refused to take part in a foreign ministers' meeting in New York on Iran, saying that it was not the right time. The group of six mediating countries were planning at the meeting to discuss a new resolution on sanctions against Tehran which continues to describe its nuclear programme as civilian. However, while the countries of the West are in a desperate rush, as they think that the Islamic Republic is on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, Russia says lugubriously that "the question of the Iranian nuclear programme does not require any extraordinary measures at present". This appears to have greatly encouraged Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad who accused the USA of trying to distort the facts and promised to defend their interests "with the support of friends". As for Tehran's enemies, the Iranian leader predicted their collapse. Ahmadinejad thinks that the next US presidential administration will have to limit its activity to within the country's borders and not try to interfere in the affairs of other states. The Iranian leader also accused the US authorities of starting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where terrorist activity is increasing, in order to win votes. The Iranian leader also had a go at the "Zionist regime" and predicted collapse for them too without any chance of "getting out of the pit which they have dug themselves". Not surprisingly, Israeli President Shimon Peres, who also attended the General Assembly, described the Iranian president's remarks as anti-Semitic and reminiscent of the worst rhetoric of Hitler's era. 

For his part, George Bush emphasized that Russia had violated the UN Charter by sending soldiers to Georgia and called for tougher sanctions on Iran and North Korea for nuclear research and for Iran and Syria to be punished for continuing to support terrorism. "We must stand united in our support of the people of Georgia. The United Nations Charter sets forth the 'equal rights of nations large and small'. Russia's invasion of Georgia was a violation of those words," George Bush said, and promised that the USA would continue to support the "brave young democracies". 

This was the last UN General Assembly speech for the current occupant of the White House. Bush, who will soon retire, made the most of his last chance and waxed lyrical about his own achievements on the international stage. Many Western, especially European, media could not resist pointing out that the American leader had not said a word about his mistakes, only describing the war in Iraq as "difficult". And this war was at one time a great test for the UN.

In the light of the latest events in the Caucasus there was a lot of interest in Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili's speech. He asked the UN not to recognize the independence of the "separatist provinces" of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Georgian leader promised to respond to the "aggression" against Tbilisi "with a second rose revolution", referring to measures to democratize the country such as extending the powers of parliament, strengthening the independence of the judicial system, etc. Saakashvili stressed in particular that the "occupation of Georgia", the recognition of the independence of its two regions and the "ethnic cleansing of thousands" were a "general challenge" to the community of nations. Therefore, the UN should not just respond to the particular question of one instance of armed aggression in a single place but define its attitude toward armed aggression in all places. Mikheil Saakashvili also referred to the need to change and reform the existing mechanisms for peace-keeping and mediation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

This year the president of another country addressed the General Assembly on the problem of separatism on its territory. Serbian leader Boris Tadic called on the UN to support Belgrade's position in the International Court of Justice on the juridical status of Kosovo. An initiative was submitted to the General Assembly for consideration to ask the International Court to render an advisory opinion on the unilateral declaration of independence of this Serbian province and decide whether this action by the territory's leadership corresponds with international law. Serbia could not go to the UN's International Court directly as it does not recognize Kosovo as an independent state and subject of international-legal relations.

Many Western countries, led by the USA, supported Kosovo's unilateral separation from Serbia at the start of the year, while Russia talked about the potential danger of an international precedent and categorically opposed it. But six months later Russia applied the same scenario towards the separatist regions of Georgia - Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This time the same Western countries, again led by the USA, reacted extremely negatively. And in both cases the UN showed its total helplessness. So now everyone understands full well that the calls by Mikheil Saakashvili and Boris Tadic are just hot air. 

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met during the 63rd session. Relations between Moscow and Washington are so fraught that the mere fact of an inconclusive dialogue was described as near historic and a cause for optimism. A senior official at the US State Department happily told journalists that Lavrov and Rice did not shout at one another or create any fuss or bang the table with their fists. This makes you want to ask, "So what did you expect?"

Much of the media commented that the confrontation between the Kremlin and the White House is not having the best influence on international security. Cooperation on very many issues between the two countries has been highly ineffective recently. The failure to hold the meeting of the group of six on Iran, scheduled for 25 September, is further confirmation of this, should any be needed. 

The crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme is not the Security Council's only "moribund" affair, as we all well know…