UN Conference
Oct. 3, 2001

From the beginning its existence has been subjected to a great deal of debate and controversy. Some would like to see it shut down. Even the United States, home to its headquarters, has proven to be a lackluster participant. Those on the flip side say the global peacekeeping group, the United Nations, is essential to promoting a more sanguine political environment and curtailing international crime, especially in the aftermath of the violent attacks on September 11.

This division in thought is driving a group of international experts to come together in order to assess whether or not the United Nations teeters toward extinction. “It’s an important question,” said Jim Fearon, International Relations professor at Stanford University.

Fearon admits the U.N. has been associated with many failures such as civil unrest in places like Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda, but contends that the peacekeeping framework at the heart of the U.N. is essential to establishing calm politics in every part of the world. “A world without the UN would undoubtedly instigate significant changes in how states manage,” Fearon said.

Created at the end of World War II, the U.N. represents nearly 200 nations today, from France to Fiji and many third world countries in between. With heavy subject matters on its agenda – racism, global healthcare, security and arms control – experts say this is a critical time to find out whether or not the U.N. can take care of these issues for every race, every language and every culture. Several international experts will commence a dialogue to address these concerns at a conference two months from now. While the conference was planned months before the jarring hijackings of four American commercial jetliners, terrorism is expected to be the focus point of many conference discussions. “Before the attack, people were not aware of the presence of terrorism, how close it was and how many people were involved,” said Mary Granholm, one of the conference organizers.

The United Nations Association of the United States plans to hold its first Mid-Pacific Regional Conference on November 10. It will take place at the Center for Educational Research at Stanford and the price to attend is $25 a person. Some of the local groups expected to attend are Amnesty International, Rotary International and the League of Women Voters. The conference is open to anyone interested.

With every story assignment I strive to go beyond the information and contacts provided on the press release, albeit many times I’m left without much of a choice. In my opinion, this assignment easily could have been produced into a long in-depth preview of the upcoming conference, especially given the UN’s long and tumultuous history coupled with the recent atrocity. At the same time, the UN’s precarious future has been discussed and debated in different forums by various experts for decades and some editors may have only used it as an upcoming calendar event. In my approach, I opted to write something that would be considered somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

My attempt to track down information and insight included internet searches, phone calls, and emails to experts on the United Nations and International Relations. I received some rejection and many requests went unanswered. The best contact I found for this story was a Stanford professor in the International Relations Department. Jim Fearon was the first to return my phone message and provide me with some interesting facts and a poignant point of view. Professor Fearon is not listed on the press release nor can he guarantee that he’ll attend the conference but he is well versed on the UN and the stake it holds in our future.