THE UN AND THE SECRETARY GENERAL. A FAILURE OR SUCCESS

Years after the creation of the UN to replace the defunct League of Nations, there is continuous debate among its member states on the successes and failures of the this noble organization this in itself should not create doubts in the minds of the world that it has completely failed to make the world a peaceful place. In its core mandate it has strived hard to avoid another world war which is one of the greatest successes so far. Of course so many experts in mediation and security has failed in bringing peace to areas assigned to them,the intricacies of how they failed cannot be relegated.

A former UN secretary general, Trygvie lie one called the office of secretary general of the UN the most impossible job in the world. I think Trygvie Lie knew what he was talking about. The UN is charged with some tasks of extraordinary difficulty. In the performance of his work, he obviously cannot make every one happy. Each faction may expect support for its own position and becomes disappointed when fails to get them. Obviously, the secretary general must remain scrupulously neutral and avoid any words or action that may taint him as an impartial mediator.
I think the job seems impossible because it pendulums between frustration and satisfaction. Thus, no matter the decision taken, one party may feel unsatisfied. Frustration sets in when the incumbent [ ] would like to do much more than obtaining rules permit and satisfaction when the whole idea of peace is established and may be his office enables him to intervene to good effect and contribute to the solution of international problems. The scope opens to the secretary-general in the fulfillment of his talks are both broad and narrow. It is broad in that his functions are defined so vaguely that he can act wherever he considers it in the interest of peace and co-operation to do. It is narrow because the secretary-general must be very mindful of the inter play of forces among governments and his role as honest broker. If he is seen to be swaying in one direction, it may impair his credibility as a broker of peace or manager of crisis.

Many have accused secretary generals in the aspect of delay and reluctance. But I beg to differ; I think the secretary generally should negotiate only at the request of the parties to the dispute. Nothing is wise and nothing would be less wise than for him to force himself upon a situation. In any case where would be the other party if only one party agrees to a negotiation.The only measure he can put in place to reduce delay is to talk to both parties separately, the need to sit down for negotiation and it should be done within the shortest possible time in other to avoid escalation of already tensed up situation or a crisis.
Considering the additional countries to the UN and the military and economic might other countries have achieved over the past decades, the UN has transformed from a more powerful to not necessarily a less powerful organization. This is a stage where countries can defy the orders of the UN irrespective of the wrong it has committed or perceived to have committed especially countries that were known to be weak countries.

This position has become so fragile that, the person in that position is seen as a person who obviously shouldn’t fail in his dealings. It does not solely lie on the Sec. Gen when it comes to action. Be it military or economic, but the unfortunate thing is, he bears the wrath of the world when actions fail or is taken against.
Moreover there are big wig countries that may influence his judgment or frustrate his actions. People often call him a stooge of the western allies and that cannot be totally ignored, whether it is a perception or reality its one big problem the UN has to deal with unless off course they see it as an irrelevant aspect of achieving peace or putting confidence in the hearts of many. One may be compelled to join thinkers who think he is a stooge considering the way events normally unravel. I don’t think the West has ever failed in working with its positions on matters concerning world peace, U can say they run the UN but the question one needs to ask inwardly is who finances the UN or bears the chunk? When it comes to aid, which does it on fall on most? If these are questions are answered well, many people will understand the reason for their domination and control. I have always admired the alacrity at which the US responds to crisis in terms of aid be it the Middle East or Africa.
As it is, no member sate can be compelled to pay its contribution to the regular budget although its voting rights may be suspended under the charter if it fails behind for more than two years. Voluntary contribution to finance the numerous extra budgetary programs may depend entirely on the generosity with which each state responds to the secretary general’s appeal, and it has always seen west to respond to such, therefore if the West is seen to be controlling the secretary general or the UN, it becomes very difficult to criticize.