A dangerous thesis

MAKING a speech to 54th UN General Assembly session, Secretary-General Kofi Annan detailed the efforts and commitments of the United Nations for promoting world peace and harmony (“Double danger thesis”, edit, Sept 24).

In his “unpopular Essays”, Bertrand Russel not very long ago had propounded his thesis of “World Government”. Mr Annan’s discourse nearly touched the concept of “World Government”, when he spoke about empowering the United Nations to “walk into” another territory for resolving global disputes as also to put an end to human misery.

US President Bill Clinton’s 17th address to the General Assembly though supports and echoes “international intervention”, his assertion of the right of blocs to “intervene in regions of conflict” without authorisation from the United Nations is fraught with serious consequences.

The UN is an association of “sovereign states” bound by a charter to maintain international peace and security. Its commitment to world peace is well pronounced. Almost all the independent countries of the world are now its members. It is the “hope and conscience of the world” and particularly of its smaller nations. The United Nations, with its 18 independent specialised agencies and 14 major programmes and funds by now, is not only known in its existence but is well understood as it embraces every man everywhere, and rather has its impact and influence on them, territorial sovereignty of their nations notwithstanding.

Blocs’ right to intervene without authorisation will not only give impetus to bloc politics and pressure groupism but also violate the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. In effect, it would dent the concept of sovereignty more than what is volitionally bartered away by the member-states for global peace and harmony. Such unauthorised interventions are ominous. These would cut across “internal autonomy” and eclipse the administration of municipal laws of victim member-state. This, in addition to regionalism, would also bring in an element of “bullyism”. It would be considerable marginalising of the United Nations. It would be antethesis of the philosophy of its origin. Rather, practically, what was intended to be guarded against by the world body for its member-states (i.e. from aggression, interference, etc, when it came into existence on October 24, 1945) would be practised by the powerful members themselves holding influence in their respective blocs.

Any outside interference does not get legitimised if made by “blocs”. The absence of UN authorisation, (within the ambit and scope of the UN Charter) would make such “interventions” to be autocratic, balkanising and bullying interferences. These would rather escalate global disputes and disharmony. These would breed a sense of distress as also fear-psychosis among the UN members, especially those belonging to the Third World.

Does Mr Clinton want to prove that international law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence.

BHARTI PARSOON
Chandigarh

Row over recruitment exams

Mr Tek Chand in his letter “Pointless controversy” (October 1) has drawn the HP Subordinate Services Selection Board into a controversy over the written examination for clerks.

This is for the first time in the history of any selection board that a state-level written examination was conducted at only one place. Even the HP Public Service Commission is holding various examinations at several places.

Hamirpur is a developing town with limited accommodation facilities and no infrastructure for tourists. The dhabas and other eating places are limited and are not equipped to cater to the sudden rush of people. That is why thousands of candidates and their guardians were left at the mercy of hoteliers, dhaba-owners and taxiwallas who were sensible enough to exploit the situation and make a quick buck. It is true that the authorities don’t make board and lodging arrangements for the examinees. But is it not desirable on their part to ensure whether these facilities exist in the town or not?

The apprehension of large-scale copying or attempts to disturb the examination is an unacceptable excuse. The menace of copying is present in every examination, and the holding of examinations at one place is no check on copying.

The holding of examinations at one place was an unwise decision of the board authorities. The candidates and their guardians were put at an unnecessary inconvenience and hardship. The government’s claim of no regionalism has also come under fire. The board must pull up its socks to avoid any such repetition.

RAVEENA MEHTA
Shimla