The United Nations Has Come to Stay

1

No other time span has witnessed such convulsive changes

and such dramatic shifts in the centers of political and economic power as the past seven decades. And yet, the Charter which came into effect in 1945 together with the Organization it created, has survived the challenge of those tortuous years.

By any measure, it is a remarkable achievement. The San Francisco Charter was hammered out by only fifty-one states under the sponsorship of the five major allies of World War II. Today the Organization's Membership has grown almost four-fold, and is representative of virtually every race, religion and political credo on Earth.

2

No man or woman (1) would claim perfection for either the text of the Charter or the performance of the Organization, but both bear remarkable testimony to the wisdom and flexibility of those who laid down the guidelines for a new order of international cooperation. Had the UN been envisaged as a rigid framework (2) within which a certain ideological approach were to be imposed on the international community, it would long since have been forgotten. Without the impetus of an idealism sufficient to inspire the UN would never have caught the imagination of the peoples. Without the tempering heaven of realism it would never have had the adherence of governments.

All of us remember the opening words of the Preamble of the Charter. It states the essence of why the UN was created: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in the fundamental human rights. What was much more difficult (3) was to draft an intricate international treaty of over 100 specific articles, setting out precisely how this was to be done.

3

The record of the debates at San Francisco shows how deeply felt some of the differences among the participants were. From time to time, it seemed inevitable that the conference must fail. But the underlying irresistible pressure to succeed was there. It is, perhaps, best explained by the words of the then British Secretary Sir Anthony Eden, addressing the conference in 1945:

«Either together we must find some means of ordering our relations with justice and fair dealing — either we must do that, or we shall soon head for another world conflict which, this time, must bring utter destruction of civilization in its trail».

Edward Stettinius, the US Secretary of State, another partner in the allied victory in World War II and spokesman for what was then the only power to possess the awesome nuclear weapon (4), was also blunt and realistic:

«Let us construct a charter of the world Organization as soundly as we can. But let us not sacrifice approval to perfection. But if we fail to act, and act NOW, we are likely to lose altogether the opportunity which has been given to us to prevent another world war».

4

Despite all the differences among the participants the Charter was signed. The ceremony took place on June 26, 1945.

Is the memory of that historic event alive today? In some countries events to mark the anniversary of the signing of the UN Charter are sometimes muted: low-key commemorative meetings are held, low-key television and radio programs are broadcasted.

Pessimists say that this kind of attitude indicates the decline, loss of stature, and threat of collapse of the most important international organization. From time to time the doom-sayers allege that the UN is now an impotent talk-shop, unable to act with decisive effect in international crises.

However, this is not the outlook of the vast majority of the UN member states. Despite the apparent flaws and inadequacies of the Charter, despite the occasional failures in the performance of this international organization, most countries seem to agree today that the UN, as presently constituted, can, and does have authority and effectiveness when the collective will of the peoples and governments supporting it, is exercised. (Based on the materials from World Encyclopaedia of Peace (1999), Chicago, vol.6)

Notes

1. In English, the phrase "men and women" replaces the word "people" and is used to elevate the style. As a rule, it is not preserved in Russian translations as a three-word phrase.

2. The inverted word order in the sentence makes it more formal.

3. It is not advisable to follow the structure of the English sentence in translation. The subordinate clause may be reduced to a short phrase: Более трудной задачей оказалось... или Намного труднее было...

4. As a rule translators do not preserve the structure of English what-sentences in Russian. Here the what-sentence should be reduced to the following Russian phrase: [...] представитель единственной державы, которая в то время/тогда обладала вызывавшим ужас ядерным оружием [...]. Pay special attention to the infinitive "to possess" which is used in the function of an attribute.