Paul Kennedy

Almost two generations ago, out of the ashes that were the Second World War, our forefathers bequeathed to us the idea and the very institutions of global civil society. They were proclaimed in President Roosevelt's idea of the "four freedoms," in the 1941 Atlantic Charter, in the great preamble to the United Nations Charter, and in the compelling 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Those visionaries pointed us to many rights, and thus to many futures, but key to it all was the rule of law, the right to free speech, and the right to vote for the government that would represent you and those who thought like you.

Also, and critically, the founders of our international order pointed to the responsibility of all citizens to accept peacefully a fair, popular vote even if that would mean one government handing over to another should the general election go in favor of the successful opposition party.

In all mature democracies -- think of Britain, Japan, Brazil, India -- it is taken for granted that a ruling party defeated in the polls gently hands over the offices of state to the winners. In other countries, where powerful forces exist who feel threatened by free speech and free elections, this is not the case.

There is another interesting and vital aspect to this matter of asserting natural freedoms that deserves more attention from the world's media than it gets, and it is this: making sure the voting is fair.

For almost 20 years now, the United Nations has added to its many roles the task of being an evenhanded electoral monitor of national elections when it is called upon to do so. The idea is simple and inherently sensible. Countries that are just emerging from civil war or decades of authoritarian rule may not have experienced fair and free elections for a very long time -- or, perhaps, ever.

Most likely, the political parties that are running in the electoral process will divide along ethnic, linguistic, regional, religious and class lines. The contenders will often be recent enemies, so why should anyone in their right mind agree to the "other" being in charge of the electoral process, of collecting and counting the votes? No way! Why fight for years and reluctantly agree to a U.N.-brokered ceasefire, just to have the electoral campaign distorted by rigging the votes, or have the process disturbed by violence?

This is where a United Nations-monitored election operation offers a way out of the local deadlock. Usually, a high-level commission of renowned world leaders like Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson, Oscar Arias and others give significance to the event; they get some of the media intrigued.

On the ground, the more important work is carried out by experienced election monitors from different parts of the globe. They are dispatched to the voting stations across the country in question; they sit next to the ballot boxes; and, when the voting time is up, they duly count the votes, checking on each slip for its validity (it's not easy in areas of great illiteracy, but they have figured that one out as well).

When the votes are sent off, usually under U.N. guard, to the central tally office, the national election figures are released. More important still, the head of the election-monitoring process issues a statement about whether the election has been true and fair. Generally, the monitors accept that there will always be some dubious or rigged local elections, or technical malfunctions (think of Florida in 2000), but if the process has worked on the whole, the election result will get a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval from international society.

This extraordinary procedure, which started in Namibia and South Africa less than 20 years ago, and has since spread to places as far away as Cambodia and Sierra Leone, is a far greater contribution to world peace than the vapid exhortations of certain Western politicians about the need to "spread democracy." After all, democracy is "spread" on the ground.

But that brings us to the main point. The very act of holding free and fair elections in troubled parts of the world, where anti-democratic elites, radicalized rebels and agitated fundamentalists are determined to block the advance of constitutional rights and parliamentary freedoms, is a risky business. Election monitors are the peacekeepers, so praised in Christ's Sermon on the Mount; but as He himself realized and experienced, those who strive for justice and freedoms are quite likely to provoke brutal responses.

The process of fair and free elections can, of course, be frustrated by less brutal and more cunning methods: drawing the boundaries in a way convenient to the ruling party, bribing groups of voters, hijacking election boxes, deliberately miscounting the votes, intimidating citizens about the loss of their livelihoods if they vote in the wrong direction, and all the other tricks.

Observers of election skullduggery in the "rotten boroughs" of early 19th-century Britain, or in the precincts of Chicago in the 1930s, would not be surprised at any of this. It takes time for a free society to grow into being an electorally fair society, which is probably why those experienced U.N. election monitors are content to report that, "on the whole," an election in a recently established democracy can meet international standards.

But now let us come to the Taliban, whose assault upon fair and free elections is of a totally different order of magnitude: It is simply not interested in vote skullduggery, but in the extirpation of the electoral process itself. How else can one explain their deliberate attack, on Oct. 28, of a U.N. compound in Kabul that housed those dedicated election monitors, killing five of them, along with two Afghan security officials and one Afghan civilian.

In the words of the Associated Press, "The Taliban claimed responsibility for the assault, saying they intentionally targeted U.N. employees working on the recent presidential election." Intentionally targeted U.N. employees. Well, it has come to that -- civilization against barbarism. We might add in here that five members of the World Food Programme were killed by a suicide bomber in Islamabad in early October. Murdering those who dare to bring food to the wretched of the Earth is unconscionable, and puts those who did it outside normal humanity. The Taliban has lost it.

Of course, conscious-stricken Western democracies will agree that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's decision to withdraw 200 U.N. staff from risky areas in Afghanistan is a good idea, and some of them (some) may actually offer further military protection, that is, troops.

But my sense is that those Western democracies are generally doing their best, in this troubled world of close to 20 (!) international or civil conflicts; some of them are really straining to help out, though others are laggards. Still, responding to Ban Ki-Moon's appeal for more protection of U.N. civilian workers cannot just be left to the usual players: the countries of Europe, Canada, Australia, and some of the more responsible Latin American states. The world community is entitled to request help from other players, also.

Two countries are far behind their special international responsibilities here, and anyone who studies the U.N.'s many burdens comes to know it. They are Russia and China. In 1945, they were both given -- along with Britain, France and the United States -- special privileges in order that they should be leading players in preserving world peace, and sustaining the aims of the U.N. Charter. Yet both, for selfish, nervous reasons, have failed miserably to meet their obligations.

The time has come, I think, for Russia and the PRC to step up to the plate. The time has come for them to join in the protection of the gallant, unarmed United Nations staff who are trying to carry out the purposes and mandates of the world body in which they have played such a negative, non-contributory role, authorizing Security Council mandates but declining to help where it really matters, on the ground.

This set of thoughts is not, therefore, just about the sheer evilness of The Taliban's attacks on U.N. election monitors and aid workers. It is also about certain Great Powers who insist on special privileges, but without responsibility. Edmund Burke got it right: Evil succeeds when great men do nothing.