Earlier today, Mr. Akashi mentioned a delicate issue. He referred to the Security Council. Some say that beginning discussions on this issue is like opening Pandora's box; once we start on the issue, the situation will get out of control. However, we cannot put it off any longer. To keep the Pandora's box closed means to do nothing. The issue should bediscussed anyway. Otherwise, it is meaningless to keep the word "united" in the title of the organization "United Nations." We should not leave the situation the same as in 1945. Various criticisms have been voiced against this organization. Some of them may be right to a point, but others may not. However, I would like to make one important thing clear. That is, the U.N. itself cannot exert power. Each person who composes the U.N. should act to make the organization more powerful. It is like criticizing yourself in that member sovereign states express only disapproval of the U.N. I would rather ask them if they have paid their financial contributions to the U.N. I would also like to ask if they have providedtools for implementation to Mr. Akashi, when operations are carried out.
Among the many tasks of the U.N., peace keeping is of particular importance. However, the U.N. has no tools to implement peace keeping and peace enforcement operations.
The U.N. needs to have a regular army or police force. The time is now ripe for it. An increasingly large number of governments begin to insist that they do not want to get involved in peace keeping operations any longer. They want the U.N. to operate moderately. Since such operations may involve the loss of human life, the governments will lose popularity among their people. Therefore, they have begun to say, "Please stop it. We do not want to dispatch our forces to an area that is not directly related to us."
I might go too far, but the concept of a U.N. regular army becomes necessary. I do not think this will solve all the problems. It might be a small step in the right direction, and recent conflicts make me feel that way.
International laws constitute an obstacle to peace keeping operations. Under certain laws,
foreign intervention in a nation is an infringement on sovereignty. The basic concept is that intervention is allowed only when respective governments concerned demand it or explicitly approve it. I wonder if this is right. Even if people are suffering, we cannot intervene unless the dictator demands it. International laws are wrong, if they treat the two cases equally: when a government illegally comes into power and afflicts its people; and when a government is legal and democratic. When Hitler massacred Jewish people, no intervention was made until the last minute, on the grounds of sovereignty. Unless the concept of sovereignty changes, it is most probable that a similar event will occur again. While we waste time in discussing such issues, we are losing time and many people are
