Might is right and according to the mighty the opposition is irrelevant! The politics of irrelevancy has been used repeatedly in international arena regarding a myriad of political situations. In recent years, the Israeli proclamation of irrelevancy of Chairman Yasser Arafat opened the door to the politics of irrelevancy. The episode suggested, as my opponent, you either have to comply with my policies or slip into insignificance and just become irrelevant. Any support you may enjoy from your own people or any legal relevancy you may have won, even by democratic process, is not relevant. This school of politics says even while you may be breathing and physically standing on your feet, you are dead because you are irrelevant.

But the story of Palestine and the use of this policy against its leader are old issues. Innumerous politicians of varying degrees of relevance have come and gone and even some of the most relevant mighty have failed to find a just solution.

But a dormant question regarding the relevancy of the United Nations was brought to surface just prior to the war on Iraq by a US led coalition of sorts. The huge machinery of the United Nations political structure was challenged. The mightiest of its members told it to either comply with its policy of punishing the accused without further question or take the risk of plunging into irrelevancy. The mighty said, it was bringing a case to the United Nation's Security Council and expecting its compliance with the stance of the mighty, but with or without its agreement, the mighty considered it its mighty right to take unilateral action in defense of its own interests and the interests of its allies.

For sometime, a stunned United Nations, its secretariat, its secretary general, its security council and its members as a whole were perplexed seeking a way, not out of the case in hand, but for a solution to the question of their own irrelevancy.

They were looking into and reminding themselves of other examples of the politics of irrelevancy followed with a good degree of success for example in the case of an Afghanistan that emerged after a meeting in Bonn, Germany. The arrangement was made with the world's top most politicians at the level of nations and the United Nations. The Bonn meeting agreed on irrelevancy of a Mujahideen president of Afghanistan, namely Mr. Burhanuddin Rabbani. The meeting found instead, a former King of Afghanistan more relevant to the degree that his proposal for an emergency Loya Jirga was considered one of the best solutions for the Afghan problem. Yet the Bonn meeting decided on the irrelevancy of the former King's senior adviser and representative Mr. Abdul Sattar Seerat and instead decided on a younger person in absentia (because he was far away from Bonn inside Afghanistan engaged in war against the Taleban) to lead the country during an initial interim phase. But the supporters of the former King who wanted a more active and more relevant role for him held the Loya Jirga with a lot of fanfare and beating of the hollow drums. It was not until the eleventh hour that a special envoy of the United States President worked on the former King stressing on his irrelevancy to the current politics and extracting a retraction of an offer by him to serve the country in any capacity the nation deemed necessary.

This provided the grounds for Hamid Karzai to assume power. Royalists mumbled opposition, but did not get to pronounce their unhappiness. The US president's envoy working together with Karzai worked hard to cover the irrelevancy they had bestowed on the former King with a hollow title of Father of the Nation, a position tailored specifically for him and which would probably die with him.

Now with Karzai at the helm, Afghan politics had to deal with many warlords, who because of their military might that is superior to the central government's tiny army of only 3,000 can challenge and disobey orders of the central government. These warlords were found very relevant by the United States in its war on terror. Even within Karzai's own government, powerful factional figures, supported by the strong factional military power and political standing, prove threat to his rule, so much so that at times people fear that he might also be vulnerable to irrelevancy.

The US military presence in the country serving double objective of fighting Taleban and Al-Qaeda on the one hand while proving as forces of relative stability for the rule of Karzai on the other, has not eased the situation a bit. They want to support Karzai while keeping their excellent relations with the warlords. Some say this is close to impossibility because as long as the warlords rule big chunks of the country Karzai would not be able to establish any power for his writ beyond Kabul.

Considering all of the above as practical examples of implementation of the new trend namely the politics of irrelevancy, the people of the world, through their representatives and the United Nations and its Security Council and Secretary General are trying to reassert a role for the United Nations that is relevant to the current demands of international politics. For example, France, Germany, and Russia are trying to come on board regarding the United States proposals in the Security Council for helping the Iraqis. They once again want the world that was considered irrelevant regarding the issue of war, to get involved in the matter of peace. And the United Nations machinery as a whole, like an endangered species persists for its survival whether relevant or not! 6/7/03