LETTER: Too early to write off the UN
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Malcolm Harper
Sir: Your Diplomatic Editor, Michael Sheridan, reports ("Humiliation for UN as it ends Bosnia peace-keeping role", 19 September) that the United Nations will hand over to a Nato-dominated multilateral force in Bosnia- Herzegovina, in what he describes as "both an admission of failure and a political humiliation".
Ever since the troubles erupted in the Balkan region, many of us have asked why the UN had to become directly involved there. Surely, we argued, Europe (especially when the UN description of Europe, which includes Canada and the US, is used) has the capacity to resource and implement a regional response to a crisis within its borders?
Very sadly, Europe proved incapable of doing so. The one body, recognised under Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter and designed for such crises - the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) - had never been properly resourced or structured. Had it been so, all the interested parties, including the Russians, would have been involved as equal partners. So instead, we looked to the European Union and to Nato to assist the UN's essential work in providing peace mediators, human rights monitors and air support. The Russians have never been at all happy with this.
Despite many frustrations (caused largely by the member states seriously under-resourcing it), the UN has reduced the level of violence in Bosnia- Herzegovina. It has brought much-needed humanitarian assistance to many victims of the war. It has provided a legitimacy and a framework for attempts to broker a negotiated settlement and it has established a war crimes tribunal.
Failure and humiliation? Do these not belong rather to the member states of the OSCE? Of course, Nato can only assume this new role if the UN Security council (including the Russians) authorises it to do so. And who will spearhead a comprehensive reconciliation and reconstruction programme as and when the fighting stops? Nato? The EU? We will surely make that demand of the UN.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Harper
Director, UN Association of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
London, SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments