Search results

Its official policy of apartheid makes South Africa the only country in the world in which racial discrimination is a matter of gov'al doctrine. The situation has been under attention in the UN on the grounds not only that the policy violates basic human rights but also that it constitutes a threat to internat'l peace & security. The explosiveness of the South African situation has been increased by the forcible extension of apartheid policies to the mandated territory of South West Africa. Repeated appeals by the General Assembly & the Security Council, expressions of regret & concern & demands that it desist from the discriminatory racial policies & initiate measures aimed at bringing about racial harmony based on equality have elicited no positive response from the gov of South Africa, which recognizes & admits its isolation from world opinion but defends the 'morality of its outlook' & boasts that it is not isolated econ'ly. A General Assembly resolution was adopted in Nov 1962, requesting member states to exercise econ sanctions against South Africa. Not all members are persuaded of the efficacy or feasibility of such measures. Other punitive measures, such as expulsion of South Africa from the UN, have been advocated. The view is unavoidable that South Africa is on a course which can lead only to conflict within the country as well as throughout the rest of the continent & perhaps the rest of the world. AA.

Examines UN resource limitations in light of steady demand for the organization's operational field involvement. The UN's vast data-gathering system is described in terms of its implications for sustainable development & sustainable economic growth. As an early warning system for agenda building, the UN system has brought about change in some Bretton Woods institutions; however, in some cases, early warnings have gone unheeded. These issues are discussed in the context of the UN's capacity for advocacy & norm-setting. The need for as wide a consensus as possible among the UN member states is stressed. While still an instrument of national policies, the UN can play a role in the collective legitimization of new norms, standards, & principles of universal application. J. Zendejas

The main purpose of this article is to try to make clear what in the present condition of the world we can legitimately expect the United Nations to do: a) as regards the maintenance; and b) if aggression should unfortunately recur, as regards the restoration of world peace. These are two very different matters; and it is possible to believe that the first is more important than the second. For the United Nations will certainly have achieved its major purpose if there is no third world war; whereas, if there is, the issue will only to a comparatively minor degree be decided by the United Nations. I know that, stated so bluntly, this thesis may not be accepted by everybody; but the general trend of any argument will be that prevention is better than cure, more particularly if the cure involves the indiscriminate plastering of large areas with atomic bombs and "other weapons of mass destruction".

THE APPEARANCE IN RECENT YEAR OF A THIRD WORLD MAJORITY IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS STILL OFFSET, IN THE UN SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, BY THE GRIP THAT THE VETO-WIELDING POWERS RETAIN IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL. IF IT IS NOT TOTALLY TO LOSE THE WORLD'S ATTENTION, THE ASSEMBLY SHOULD DEVELOP CONCILIATION PROCEDURES MAKING IT EASIER TO FIND GENERALLY ACCEPTED FORMULAE BEFORE VOTES ARE TAKEN.

Since independence, India has played an important role in strengthening the United Nations capability in the maintenance of international peace and security. Faced with the problem of Kashmir where Pakistan supported raiders, in violation of the Six Month Stand Still Agreement to work out future status of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, had entered the state, the ruler of the state called for assistance from India. Within hours Indian troops started to move by air and surface transportation and on entering the state faced Pakistani raiders. Some hard fighting ensued. In spite of the critical times, India pledged its support for the United Nations security system by calling on the Security Council to play a role in ending the fighting in Jammu and Kashmir and readily agreed to deploy United Nations military observers to supervise a cease fire which was negotiated by the United Nations between India and Pakistan. The decision by the Prime Minister, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru to stop fighting, instead of allowing the Indian Army to continue with its successful campaign, in favour of UN sponsored ceasefire and negotiations was significant. Nehru wished to avoid direct fighting between Indian and Pakistani forces by stepping in the general area of Uri which was at some distance from the Pakistani frontier. Regardless of the merits or demerits of this decision, the Indian Prime Minister had chosen United Nations direct military action.