In most of the world there is what closely resembles a universal anthem, put to music "happy birthday" --which most of us are prone to sing off key, though we sing it anyway.

The United Nations is 57 years old and as far as international organizations go this is a significant achievement -- almost three times the age of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which survived a mere 20 years.

But this birthday is far from happy; and the charter principles face a number of critical challenges, and the mission and meaning of the Organization hang in the balance. This is literally testing time for the United Nations and there is no assurance we will pass that test.

Far from saving us from the "scourge of war," as the charter envisioned; or establishing conditions under which justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained; or uniting our strength to maintain international peace and security; or relentlessly pursuing the pacific settlement of disputes, as chapter V1 oblige us to do, the United Nations today finds itself as a buffer between war and peace and seem to be buffeted from all sides.

The choice literally hinges on two votes in the Security Council, as the drums of war beat ever so loudly, as if there were no other options. Ironically, it was exactly 40 years ago today -- and another UN birthday -- that the world again stood on the brink of war -- nuclear war. But then, humanity was almost universally united in opposition and the United Nations was centrally engaged. War was averted and Armageddon was at least postponed.

Today, as we survey the political landscape and listen to the "rhetoric of war," there appears to be something surrealistic about the situation, as if language has no connection to reality or consequence.

Much of the talk is about the awesome power of our weapons and their unprecedented destructive capabilities

The smart bombs and the precision guided missiles and the incredible efficiency and technological wizardry of our electronic battlefield. Our faith seem more to be in our weapons than in our imaginations, or our obligations to settle disputes by peaceful means.

There is little in the war-talk about the primitive consistency of warfare; no matter how we sanitize it or how neat and efficient our killing machines, or remote our launch sites; war is still about killing and dying, about maiming and suffering, about refugees and countless other human tragedies as well as legacies of hatreds in its wake.

Not to mention the tremendous economic losses and economic costs.

It is estimated that major wars cost about $1 billion a day and maybe more.

Compare that to the costs of the other global priories outlined for example in the Millennium Goals, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the AIDS Plan of Action.

In all these situations we talk about poverty alleviation, freshwater and sanitation, affordable energy and a global mobilization to meet the scourge of AIDS --which had a higher rate of casualties than any war ever did.

Perhaps UN day 2002 is a time to indulge in "what ifs":

What if the world had a billion dollars a day to spend on this agenda of living and human well being?

It is a well established fact that after each war there is a flurry of activity and considerable creative and ingenious action.

What if we could have these "post-war" activities without having the benefit of the war first?

In this globalized and intricately connected world, with its instantaneous communications links -- we know the score. We have the facts and the reports, we know the cost and the benefits, we can't plead ignorance.

Recently, on the occasion of Peace Day, the UN held a day-long vigil, to mobilize our resolve for peace. Perhaps on UN Day 2002, the time has come for us to be more vigilant--much more vigilant -- especially during this the decade of peace and nonviolence

Perhaps its time to shift gears from collective security -- a premise of the charter to collective responsibility -- a human imperative for this new millennium -- to build a culture of responsibility.

Our leaders tell us that this is a new age, with a new "scourge of war," "global terror" where there is no immunity, or sanctuary -- in a world where humanity at large may be at "ground zero."

In such situations, traditional warfare will not defeat terrorism nor end terror. Yet we continue to plan as if nothing had changed.

Writing in the New York Times not long ago, the author Patricia Cornwell, painted a very dark and sobering picture of the emerging culture of fear, and what it does to the simple business of living and how it paralyzes life.

"Fear," she observes, "creates fear and the more we fear the more we create fear" gradually turning us into indoor creatures and eventually bringing ruin to our lives.

Cornwell then lists the personal and social deficits of fear:

These days we cringe beneath the shadows and the roar of every low passenger plane; we worry about opening our mail. At the office we demand x-ray scanners that might detect explosives or anthrax. And as the culture of fear spread we will not buy a new house or car as we rationalize we don't need anything right now.

And there are no vaccines to be dispensed and we cannot immunize our children against such fears and regardless of the outcome of the current "sniper" case this could mark the beginning of a new way of life for the foreseeable future.

To some, such a scenario might seem overdrawn or fanciful -- and many other things could happen before we reach this state of paralysis bred of a sense of helplessness.

Still the trends are worrying, and sooner or later will oblige us to come to terms with the choices we face, the future and the responsibility we will assume for helping to shape that future.

Will that future be grounded in the vision and values of the charter -- peaceful, prosperous, just, democratic and humane?

Or a more Hobbesian world where life is ëmiserable, nasty, brutish and shortí where brother fights brother and no quarter is given?

The choice is ours: Let's hope that as we observe UN Day 58, in 2003, we can look back and say, we chose life over death, hope over fear and that this was the first war that was prevented by "we the people" -- a triumph for the charter and for democracy for that matter. In the end it may not be governments saving people from the scourge of war but a people saving a government from itself.

Therefore, let us "we the people" endeavor to uphold and live the principles of the Charter and the values of democracy. In this way peace will become a daily plebiscite, and the dream of the world of the United Nations closer to realization.