When some 97 state or government heads, among other high-profile officials, gathered in New York to participate in the 59th session of the UN General Assembly, which started on September 14, there was no need to continue belittling the world body's role in solving global affairs. 

But the struggle between multilateralism and unilateralism still remains high on the agenda of this year's assembly.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's remarks earlier last week that the US-led war against Iraq was "illegal" has provoked different reactions from war backers and opponents. It already determined what would be the top topic of this year's General Assembly.

In an interview with the BBC earlier, Annan said that the decision for action in Iraq should have been decided by the UN Security Council and thus the war provided "lessons for the US, the UN and other member states."

He also said he did not want to see another Iraq-type operation in the future without UN approval and without broader support from the international community.

Annan spoke out what he and probably most other countries in the world have actually long been thinking.

After the war in Iraq, which was waged without UN backing and without any convincing reasons, the UN, whose authority has been seriously compromised and whose ability to solve international crises has remained under heavy doubts, has become the target of worldwide criticism.

Calls to reform the world body, especially its powerful 15-nation Security Council, have become louder than ever.

The mounting calls certainly reflect the world's common aspiration to forge the world's largest multilateral organization into a more effective and more binding multilateral mechanism which can really play its role in safeguarding world peace and security and promoting the common development of mankind.

Accelerated efforts by Japan, Germany, India and Brazil to gain permanent seats in the UN Security Council are a sign of the direction the reforms are taking.

But any UN reform initiative, especially on its Security Council reforms, put forward for a long period, is by no means overnight work.

"Quite honestly, I do not believe that anyone will consider the UN reforms complete without Security Council reforms bringing it into line with today's realities," Annan admitted in a speech earlier this month.

In this speech, Annan also stressed the importance of strengthening multilateral cooperation in dealing with the emerging challenges the world faces.

The evolution of the international situation after World War II and the change in South-North relations shows that without the participation of the vast majority of the world's countries, any major problem cannot be properly resolved.

The US's resort to the UN for help in rebuilding Iraq after it bypassed the world body for war simply demonstrated that any country, even big ones, cannot solve such thorny issues by themselves.

To open up and maintain multilateralist channels, the process of cooperation among various existing organizations in various countries and regions should be encouraged and expanded.

The current campaign for the expansion of the Security Council membership embodies the world members' wishes to establish a more extensive and inclusive multilateral cooperative mechanism.

History shows that unilateralism can neither win a counter-terrorist war nor resolve long-standing hot spot issues.

The UN should be given full play in international affairs, and the diversity of the world should be respected.

In his speech to the on-going UN General Assembly on September 14, Annan called for world leaders to respect human life, civilians or prisoners of war in Iraq or Sudan and beyond, demonstrating in full his pursuit of the principle of respect to all.

But Annan's calls for multilateralism in international affairs have not received unanimous positive responses from participants.

Disputing Annan's charge that the US war in Iraq was "illegal" under the world body's charter, US President George W. Bush argued earlier that the invasion had UN Security Council support.

Although he did not refer by name to Annan, Bush said that the unanimous passage of Resolution 1441 in November 2002 in the UN Security Council, in which Saddam was warned of facing "serious consequences" if he were found to be seeking weapons of mass destruction (WMD), meant Washington had been given the green light from the world body for war.

"The United Nations looked at the same intelligence I looked at. They concluded Saddam Hussein was a threat. They voted by 15-0 in the UN Security Council for Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm or face serious consequences," Bush said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan and US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher also both refuted Annan's argument that to wage the war, the US should need a second resolution after the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 and other resolutions that preceded it.

Britain and Australia, two staunchest allies of the US in its war against Iraq, also severely lashed out at Annan following his comments.

To maintain a monopolistic say in the international community, it seems that the United States will not easily abandon its long-held unilateralist mentality and style of behavior.

UN efforts to build a more efficient and effective multilateral cooperative mechanism will face an uphill path.

(China Daily September 22, 2004)