Sir, - Kevin Myers was not at his usual perspicacious best when he wrote (An Irishman's Diary, July 24th) about "ludicrous and unenforceable mandates devised by third-rate fools who had jobs in the UN civil service largely because of its nationality quota system." Let us call them L and U mandates.
I have no particular yen to defend UN civil servants, but fair is fair. They should not be blamed for UN mandates. The big powers treat UN Security Council resolutions and mandates as too important to be left to UN officials.
Nothing gets through without the scrutiny and approval - or at least the acceptance - of the permanent members' staffs. They have adequate staffs of their own highly trained servants and defence attaches at UN HQ. To protect their national interests, and those of their client states, every comma in draft resolutions and mandates is scrutinised.
Any mandate which emerges, including the L and U ones, has passed this scrutiny. Did the poor innocents fail to spot the L and U aspects? When the ironic laughter stops one might ask - well, when the military on the ground complain, why not sponsor a UN resolution and correct the mandate? After all there were about 80 resolutions passed by security council members about Former Yugoslavia - most during Sarajevo's 40 month bombardment.
Are we to believe that Britain and France, with troops and generals in Bosnia, put up with "ludicrous and unenforceable mandates" - unless those mandates suited national interests. The decision, by governments, to use a "consultation room", separate from the Security Council Chamber, has deprived us of the impassioned speeches, dramatic vetoes and walk-outs of the UN's early days.
There are advantages in quiet diplomacy. But there is a democratic deficit also - we do not know the background to Security Council resolutions. A rare case of a UN Official putting the facts on record will be found in James Jonah's John W. Holmes Memorial Lecture (Brown University 1993).
In the broadsheet British and French newspapers, one read well-argued (and officially inspired?) reasons why nothing could be done and nothing should be tried to halt the shelling of Sarajevo. At times, France would have taken action if she had British support. That was not available. When action finally became unavoidable the guns were silenced almost immediately. But the blame for 40 months of killing has been adroitly passed to "the UN".
The late Sir Anthony Parsons (a loss to hard-headed, peace-oriented diplomacy) and Dr Cruise O'Brien have discussed the UN's function as a scapegoat for the folly and selfishness of great powers. See the terminology of an experienced man like Martin Bell, MP, when he says (Foreword to Cry of Bosnia by Elvira Simic): "For more than three years the Governments produced nothing - or nothing but empty resolutions, cosmetic half-measures and a UN force with impressive numbers but an insufficient mandate. . .it is a story that should lead us to question anew why our Governments let this happen" (my italics).
The UN we have is not the best UN we could have. It needs many reforms - and it is not the small powers that are blocking them. But it needs our support - or at least our scrutiny of its denigration. One can understand the anger of Mr Loyt and Kevin Myers - but one must be wary of pervasive propaganda against "the UN" and its officials. - Yours, etc.,
E.D. Doyle, Tower Road, Clondalkin, Dublin 22.