Postwar: Consensus grows for an un role

The US war in Iraq without the Council’s explicit blessing rose a question:

– What precisely is the UN for?

– What does it do well or not very well?

– Can it adapt to a new global order?

– What does the United States which was instrumental in founding the UN and has been its home for decades want from the organization now?

– Does the world’s only superpower see the UN as a vital instrument of global cooperation or as a narrower body that is sometimes useful and whose only job should be limited to purely humanitarian efforts?

Washington Post,

December, 2003

Упражнение III. Переведите текст 3 письменно (текст написан в стиле публицистического жанра. См. переводческий комментарий):

Текст 3

The un – more relevant than ever

By David M. Malone,

a former Canadian

ambassador to the UN

New York

The United States didn’t need the United Nations going into Iraq, but it may need the United Nations to get out. Otherwise, how can a legitimate Iraqi government be established when the shooting stops?

America is an improbable midwife for an acceptable Iraqi government. U.S. motives in installing such a government will be questioned throughout the country.

The U.S. feed and kill policy – throwing bombs in Baghdad and throwing food at the people – is not winning hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

So the United States will be obliged to seek UN help in convening discussions among Iraqis on an interim political framework and constitutional models for the future.

More importantly, without the blessing of the UN council it will be difficult for some countries to help participate in, or pay for, the reconstruction.

The United Nations, whose very existence was brought into question at the outbreak of hostilities, may come out of this difficult experience more relevant then ever – but in different ways.

New York Nimes,

November 28, 2003

Упражнение IV. Переведите тексты 4, 5, 6 с листа, определяя контекстуальное значение незнакомых вам слов:

Текст 4

The United Nations is the only thing we have although there are many

things wrong with it. It often doesn’t function in the way it is supposed to: the time has changed since world war II.

However, it’s the only world forum that exists. There are no other place where every country in the world can present its ideas, complains, wishes, suggestions and so on.

Setting up an alternative organization for such a purpose would seem ridiculous, and because the world order as we have known it in the second half of the 20th century is now being destroyed by the Bush government, we will become more dependent on the UN to reconstruct a similar stable world order.

I think also that already we are seeing developments that show a greater assertiveness on the part of countries that until recently would have been taking a back seat, or taking a more timid position, in world affairs.

D. Wolferen, a professor of the Amsterdam University,

Netherlands

Текст 5

There are many countries now which seek to attach more weight to the UN.

The UN does not always do what is right. But we have the opportunity to discuss whether we should dispatch our troops or not. The current situation does not permit Japan to lay bare its opinions, making us feel humiliated.

* * *

All things, including peace-keeping operations, which I see as exercising the right to wage war, should be decided on within a multilateral framework.

* * *

And I am a very strong advocate of diplomacy by European countries, Japan and other Asian countries toward giving the UN General Assembly more significance.

Sh. Magadai, a professor of Tokyo Metropolitan University,

The Japan Times

March 5, 2004

Текст 6

President Jacques Chirac yesterday signalled that France would abstain from supporting the American-sponsored resolution on postwar Iraq if the UN was not given a greater role in the country.

"The president said he was convinced the text can be markedly improved so everyone can look upon it favourably," said Mr Chirac’s spokes- woman, Catherine Colonna.

"As it stands, the role envisaged for the United Nations is unsatisfactory," she added.

The Guardian,

February, 2004