The United Nations annual General Assembly meeting is underway in New York, with heads of state and government from some 190 countries attending. The world community expects representatives to the meeting -- which is for all intents and purposes the closest we have come to a "world parliament" -- to discuss and find solutions to the most important global issues, including the U.S.-Iraq confrontation so that this region is saved from yet another catastrophe.

Last week's meeting between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and U.S. President George W. Bush ended with an announcement that Bush plans to address the UN General Assembly meeting. Many analysts believe that this is the result of a strategy agreed on by the two leaders to use the General Assembly meeting to promote their illogical and warlike policies.

Bearing in mind that the General Assembly meeting began only yesterday, Bush's speech today is a crude attempt to influence debates on the Iraq issue.

By custom, United Nations General Assembly meetings have served as a forum for developing countries to oppose U.S. policies, to vent their anger and voice their concerns; and among their concerns and expectations of the current meeting is an agreement on a clear, concise definition of terrorism and how it truly differs from liberation movements.

One suggestion is for the General Assembly to vote to authorize the secretary general to explore ways of finding a peaceful solution to the U.S.-Iraq conflict. Both countries have a long record of ignoring UN resolutions, and in the last decade the United States has systematically tried to reduce the role of the world body to a marginal one, at best.

Likewise, Iraqi leaders too have barely been able to conceal their contempt for UN resolutions and stand guilty of launching wars on two of their neighbors in just one decade -- among other transgressions.

Thus, a most difficult task falls on the shoulders of the secretary general and the organization he heads, i.e., dealing with two countries whose leaders do not easily abide by international law or UN resolutions.

Nevertheless, since the benefits of a diplomatic solution to the crisis far outweigh any other, the United Nations and its secretary general must shoulder this critical task and heavy burden. A resolution clearly setting out the terms and conditions of future inspections of Iraq for weapons of mass destruction would go a long way in taking away the pretext which the U.S. plans to use to unilaterally attack Iraq.

Observers believe that if the United Nations succeeds in this session -- which coincides with the anniversary of the September 11 events - in preventing an illogical and illegal attack by one of its members against another, then it will have succeeded in fulfilling the most important clause in its Charter and its raison d'etre.