The UN's turbulent week

UN Secretary General with Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri

By Jane Robbins New York

When I arrived here in New York last week, I was tired, hoping like most of my fellow passengers flying into Kennedy Airport that the evening shift at passport control would be working quickly, and we could get on our way into the city.

Well, when my turn came, the immigration officer scrutinised my passport and my visa form.

The UN, what a complete waste of space that is. Bunch of jerks.

US immigration official

"Who do you work for?"

"The BBC".

"What are you covering?"

"Oh, The UN," I told him.

The man practically spat the words back in my face.

"The UN, what a complete waste of space that is. Bunch of jerks. Never done anything for us."

I let it pass. He let me pass. But his outburst had had its effect.

America's lost idealism

The US gave the UN a home in New York after WWII

Where had all the idealism gone, I wondered, which led the United States at the end of World War II to offer the infant United Nations a home for its headquarters here in New York?

Well, American enthusiasm for the UN hasn't disappeared entirely, but powerful politicians have tended to concentrate on denigrating the organisation.

So you hear more from New Yorkers about the UN's weakness in Bosnia than you do about the huge skills of UN diplomats coaxing Afghan warlords towards the fragile beginnings of good government under Hamid Karzai.

Then, last week, I witnessed something rather remarkable: President George Bush enthralling and enthusing leaders from most of the UN's 190 member countries in a quite extraordinary speech.

Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant

President Bush

Read full text here

Sure, he chastised the UN over its failure to deal with Iraq. He challenged it to do better. But most important of all, Mr Bush committed himself - and the United States - to work with the United Nations Security Council to end Saddam Hussein's deceit and defiance.

A vision of a new era flashed before his audience. George Bush converted on the road to Baghdad.

No longer a unilateralist: America knows best, America will act alone; but George Bush the multilateralist, seeking consensus - strong consensus certainly - but consensus.

Working within the United Nations system, rather than outside it.

Saddam's political coup

Well, from George Bush's standpoint, the speech worked too well, didn't it?

Saddam Hussein backed down, or at least seemed to, and the moment that he did the new "United States and Nations" brand of global togetherness started to fall apart.

But, one step at a time. First, the electric storm created by President Bush's address.

The lightning he sent flashing around the huge spaces of the General Assembly hall sparked an extraordinary political response.

Arab governments quickly picked up the challenge, and, in the corridors, their spokesmen were eager to talk to me.

Not about the gates of hell which would open in the Middle East if America attacked Saddam Hussein - that was the message to George Bush before his speech.

No, now they wanted to talk about the way the Arab League was coaxing and cajoling the Iraqis towards accepting weapons inspectors back on the ground.

	:	Who backs war?
Where key nations stand on Iraq

Yes, the political dynamic here at the UN really was changing.

We know where it led of course - to a recalculation by Saddam Hussein of the odds stacked against him.

And I gained one intriguing insight to the isolation he must have been feeling.

Apparently, several heads of state in the Arab world tried to talk on the phone to the Iraqi leader as he was weighing up what to do.

He simply snubbed them, refused to take their calls. He was not going to admit to anybody his imminent retreat.

Paper thin that letter of retreat may still prove to be, but the letter apparently accepting the return of weapons inspectors was a political coup.

Russia vs US

The United Nations found itself suddenly disunited once more, and next morning it hosted one of the most startling news conferences I have ever attended.

The US is trying to persuade Russia to cooperate

Arranged long before to cover the Middle East peace process, an accident of timing put the United States and Russia on the platform together, to have us journalists test their responses to President Saddam's initiative.

To begin with, Colin Powell and Igor Ivanov were in unison.

Their response to whether we should believe the letter was to let deeds, not words, be our guide.

But there was grating discord on what to threaten, and when, to discourage Saddam from blocking inspections again.

Kofi Annan, the great conciliator, plaintively urged these two heavyweights to protect unity.

He knows, more than anyone, that the Security Council has no strength without it.