Erskine Childers, former assistant general secretary of the UN, said to a conference in London in the early 1990's that, after American governments, British governments had done more to damage the UN than any other. Nearly ten years ago in a pamphlet (In "a Time Beyond Warnings" about strengthening the UN system he wrote that that he would be 'very severe about governments'. But he also said that again and again the UN had 'brought out the best in governments', citing the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and commended the way in which a million teachers had been trained through the UN development programme with UNESCO, more than half of them in Africa. Unfortunately the IMF, 'supposedly part of the UN system', later ordered developing countries to dismiss tens of thousands of those teachers under its 'structural adjustments' policy.

The UN had also been successful in virtually eradicating smallpox worldwide In 1967 there had been some 15 million cases. But Erskine Childers also reminded us that the basic UN budget was too small to cover the immense tasks it had to undertake, comparing it to the cost of local government in the City of Stockholm or the government of the State of Wyoming with less than half a million population. In one revealing passage about 'Global Inequities' he wrote, "The world of the 1990's is a far, far more dangerous place than many hoped" after the end of the cold war. "There is unprecedented restiveness among huge number of human beings". There will be people at this meeting who have supported the UN all their adult lives. They grew up with it. But to the 'succeeding generations' the Charter preamble pledged to save from the scourge of war the UN is barely a side show. Politicians, aided by the media which reflects activity rather than initiate it, are more interested in immediate domestic politics. They have used the UN in their own self interest, often ignoring it. The people seem too concerned with domestic problems to attend to the wider world.

Yet there are times when the United Nations moves to the centre of the world stage, such as now. After September 11, even the US, the world's greatest superpower is unable to act alone, even in its own interest, without the support of the UN. The day after that calamity the US government went to the UN Security Council to get an enabling resolution which would legitimise action against the terrorists. But did the Council look fully at Chapter V11 of the Charter, which lays down the procedure for 'Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression'?. The Security Council could have taken measures that did not include the use of force against an independent state. Instead a resolution was passed based mainly on article 51, the right of self defence, giving the US government and many other states the right to attack Afghanistan. That country had suffered a civil war for 22 years and a drought for four. It was the last state that should have been attacked by anyone, still less with the authority of the UN. They are all still there. Article 41 says that the Security Council "may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call on members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations, of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations'. If that doesn't work the Council can draw on Article 42 which authorises, as well as action by air, sea or land forces, the use of blockade. In other words the denial of essential supplies.

The attack on America on September 11 was by an unknown enemy, yet Chapter V11 is about action against a state which breaches the peace. As no country could be held responsible the Council should not have given a blanket agreement to take military action. General Sir Michael Rose, who led British forces in Bosnia, wrote an article in 1999 asking, "Are we creating a universal culture of violence?". He wrote that "on 16th December 1998 the USA and UK struck violently at Iraq with the declared intention of 'degrading and diminishing' Iraq's capability to wage war with weapons of mass destruction". This was without the authority of the Security Council. He quoted Liddell Hart, the famous military writer, that "the more I reflect on the experience of history, the more I come to see the instability of solutions achieved by force".

Yet the UN Security Council, which has the duty to take non military action itself before using force is taking the easy way out by asking all and sundry to take action by 'all necessary means', to quote its resolution authorising the Gulf war.

What will the Council do over the attack by Israel on the Palestine areas? It should use sanctions, which include the denial of oil. The US should be asked to withdraw its civil and military aid to Israel. If the attack continues the Council should call on member states to cease trading with Israel and if necessary its foreign assets should be frozen. The threat of such action is likely to be met with an immediate pullout, but the decision to make such a threat must be underwritten by the willingness to act.

Action for UN Renewal is holding a meeting in the House of Commons on Tuesday 7th May to highlight A little-known part of the UN Charter. Article 26 states that "In order to promote the establishment of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world's human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for...the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments". This was to be done by the Military Staff Committee, which has never functioned. At the meeting we will launch ARC, the Arms Reduction Coalition, which will campaign for a progressive reduction in military budgets.

The UN is also failing to counter globalisation, although this is against the interests of all but a few of its members. Erskine Childers also drew attention to a disregarded part of the UN Charter. It is widely believed that agencies such as the IMF and the World Bank are fully independent of the UN. But Article 58 (Chapter 9) says that the UN "shall make recommendations for the co-ordination of the policies and activities of the specialised agencies". The Preparatory Commission recommended that the headquarters of the various agencies should be in the same place as the UN building. They even proposed that agency budgets should be co-ordinated with the UN budget to enable members "...to consider and vote, at one time and in one place, the budget of the Organisation and of the agencies within the consolidated system". A third fault, the lack of time available to debate and take decisions in the General Assembly must be corrected. Childers said "The work of ECOSOC (the Economic and Social Council) and the UN must be rationalised...it is quite absurd that they try to cram into a few months the equivalent that national and multinational parliaments spread over most of each year".

On the Security Council and the UN Charter He wrote about "the deep distrust provoked among the majority of member states by the powerful minority's use of the Security Council as a private club that allows in a few disdained but well-intimidated associate members. Also by that minority's usurpation of the name of the United Nations to cloak use of their military might in the mantle of the Charter's noble principles". On the veto He added that "...the Permanent Member and veto provisions of the Charter are utter anachronisms from the age of bully-powers".

Members of UNGA-Link, the NGO campaigning for an elected civil society forum meeting at the UN. would appreciate Erskine Childers' final proposal. This echoed the desire of Ernest Bevin, Britain's post-war Foreign Secretary, for an elected assembly meeting alongside the General Assembly. Then, Childers believed, "We the peoples" would really mean something.

This grew out of the Forum for UN Renewal, established at the time of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the UN, and from Renew UN which began two years earlier. The Forum's first chair was Bruce Kent, an inspiration to all who cherish the United Nations and want it to succeed. Our principal task is to talk to Members of Parliament and Ministers, and to inform and educate the general public about the need to sustain the UN. We aim to reform the attitude of those who represent us at the UN so that the desirable reforms listed above can be achieved.

We welcome new members, individuals and groups.

Information about membership is available on 020-8399-2547.

Jim Addington, Talk to Oxford UNA, 16th April 2002.