United Nations and its Future in the 21st Century
Vijay Mehta
E-mail:
vijay@anglo-sphere.com
The up coming 60th anniversary of the United Nations in 2005 coincides with a worsening world situation where it is needed more then ever. The UN has achieved a great deal, but also have been unsuccessful from time to time. UN's future is very much in the news as its unique legitimacy and impact is ignored by the worlds most militarily and politically important nation (USA) especially over the war in Iraq.
To survive the 21st Century UN needs to go through radical reforms or die and go the same way as its predecessor League of Nations. In the words of Kofi Annan Secretary General of UN "We have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive then 1945 itself, when The UN was founded. At that time a group of leaders inspired by President Franklin Roosevelt drew up rules to govern international behaviour and founded a network of institutions with UN at its center – in which the people of the world could work together for the common good".
The Secretary General followed this with the need to consider whether we can continue on the original bases or radical changes are required for its continued existence.
During its nearly 60 years of existence UN through its work comprising more then two dozen organisations has some remarkable successes to its credit – ending of apartheid, poverty alleviation, protection of rights of children, decolonization, promotion of democracy, protection of environmental gender and human rights issues are no small achievements. It has also brought humanitarian relief to 20 millions refugees and hungry, as 110 million are fed per year through World Food Program. It has helped people rebuild countries from ruins of war. UN has maintained peace and order in such diverse places as Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, Cyprus and Kashmir, over 30 years in difficult circumstances. The joint UN programme on HIV/AIDS remains a focal point for global efforts to defeat the spread of AIDS epidemic. World Health Organisation co-ordinated recently and put an end to the global response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).
At the same token, failures of UN from time to time have been quite stark. The UN has acted unwisely at times and failed to act all together at other times. One need only to think of peacekeeping disasters of Somalia in 1993, the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, and the "safe areas" in Bosnia in 1994-95. Also UN has passed resolutions ie on Israel – Palestine conflict, Iraq etc. which it had no intention to keep. But the UN at its best is only mirror of the world. It reflects divisions and disagreements as well hopes and convictions. Some times it only muddles through. As Dag Hammerskjold, the UN's second Secretary General, put it, "the UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but save it from hell".
Before we go on to examine UN reforms let us examine the main threats or challenges facing the world today. We also need to examine the response of USA - The only superpower towards those challenges and see if we can find a way forward in bringing any sanity in the world. The challenges are terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), unilateral or pre-emptive attacks by powerful nations on sovereign states, globalisation (rich-poor divide) – World Trade Organisation (WTO), imposing unfair trade rules on the poor:
Terrorism
The world and specially the US has identified (War on Terror) as its overriding priority and its occupation. The heightened state of alert in US and rest of the western world is causing endless problems including curbing civil liberties in US, UK and other parts of the world. War on terror has been used as a excuse for increased military spending in order to secure power and control. The recently formed Counter Terrorism Council (CTC) by the UN is monitoring the worldwide terror networks and responding to them.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
A variety of factors are driving up military spending; terrorism, civil wars, border conflicts and modernisation. The world is awash with 36.000 nuclear warheads worldwide and with millions of small arms in Africa and other parts of the globe. After USA's unilateralist military approach most countries in the world including the permanent 5 (P5) veto-wielding members of the Security Council-Britain, France, China, Russia and USA have increased defence spending for the first time after the Cold War. USA has proposals for a new missile defence shield and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, or so called mini nukes. The world, need to get rid of all military hardware for any lasting peace on earth.
Unilateral or pre-emptive attacks by powerful nations on sovereign states
It is worth remembering that when US could not find WMD in Iraq and also could not get a second Security Council resolution on Iraq, it led a unilateral invasion without a explicit Security Council authorisation for force. Other countries like Iran and Syria are accused of having WMD's and are threatened with pre-emptive or unilateral strikes. The bigger question is that is there any grounds for intervention for powerful countries to attack sovereign states on humanitarian, moral or any other reasons? Can a attack on another country be ever justified? Are pre-emptive strikes an answer to terrorism?
Globalisation (rich-poor divide) – World Trade Organisation (WTO), Imposing unfair trade rules on the poor.
Around 2 Billion people throughout the world live in abject poverty on $1 a day while for the first time in the history we have the technology, know how and the means to feed them and also make them part of society instead of marginalising them. Globalisation and World Trade Organisation (WTO) unjust trade policies have increased the social – economic divide leading to deprivation of millions of people in poor countries resulting in loss of jobs, opportunity and hope.
Before we embark on UN reforms we have to get our priorities right. Should we devote our efforts to fighting terrorism and the spread of WMD's or is it more urgent to tackle poverty, disease, climate change and the spread of small arms. I think the answer is to strike the balance and confront all these threats at once.
Speaking recently to African-American civil society groups Kofi Annan said that "The use of Unilateral and pre-emptive force is dangerous. I am convinced that it is in US interest to work through the UN. The world is on the move. We have to make sure it moves in the right way. I hope and believe we can. The choice is not between multilateralism and unilateralism. It is between co-operation and catastrophe."
We need to understand that the US foreign policy and its behaviour to the rest of the world stems from them seeing their vital "national interest" at stake. The US desires to be the worlds unchallenged economic, political and military power. There are two schools of thought within the present Bush administration. The neoconservatives view UN as a trap (Thank God for the death of the UN-Richard Pearle), a stop gap to their unilateralist impulses and they see an inherent danger in co-operating with UN and other multilateralist organisations. In their view US possess sheer and overwhelming economic and military power which is enough proof for them to go solo. The second school of thought relates to domestic pressures and influences within the US and from International Community. It concerns in continuing need to secure International legitimacy and allies for its future military adventures and war on terror. It sees the need to co-operate with UN on things it can not handle (reconstruction of Iraq, peacekeeping, mediation in internal conflicts and monitoring of human rights and proliferation of WMD). It is generally acknowledged that now more then ever US needs the UN and not the other way around. It will be difficult for US to engage in another military adventure without adhering to international norms-UN mandate, International Law and Global public opinion.
We can respond to new global challenges by bringing far reaching reforms of the world body, so that UN remains central to world politics, peace and security. These are as follows:
UN to work towards a vision of a better, fairer world
Human history is in transition and UN should take the lead in deciding the global agenda and not let it be defined by one or more powerful nations.
If the UN can truly build support of governments, international community and global public opinion then it can build itself into the only credible world body to bring equitable, free and democratic society in the 21st Century.
To achieve that, the key for UN is to improve relations with USA and not isolate them even if it seems all odds are stacked against it. UN need to build the same association with the powerful nations as it has developed with poor and powerless. Kofi Annan recognised this from the beginning of his tenure that relations with US, specially its financial contribution were important for the successful running of UN. It is a great credit to his leadership that Annan's persistent efforts have paid the way not only of patching the differences with the US but also to neutralise reactionary opponents of UN in the US Congress. As a result US not only paid its dues but also deemed necessary to secure authorisation from UN in run up to the war in Iraq. However it was a pity that, UN and international community could not stop US attacking Iraq unilaterally. It is in interest of UN and the rest of the world that we keep trying for US to comply with UN system, rule of law and international norms, so that it is forced not take decisions on its own.
The US agenda (War on Terror and WMD) is the same as the agenda of the UN and rest of the world. UN along with the rest of the world also acknowledges these as most important threats and its primary goal is to establish peace and security. In this respect UN and US can work together for the common good.
However the main difference is in the methodology of actions. Hawks in Washington were in the forefront of war on Iraq and are advocating for future wars. They are telling President Bush to go for a regime change in Syria , Iran and a Cuba style blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites. The present Bush administration policy of striking any country which they think is against their national interest is the biggest danger to the present world today.
In the back drop of that the hope for the UN and world community is to have an enlightened dialogue with US to adopt alternative methods than war to establish peace in the world.
The events of 9/11, war on Afghanistan and Iraq, killings and murders in Israel and Palestine, have given rise to extremism, seeds of violence and aggression. This in turn fuels endless cycle of violence, terrorism and future wars.
There is an urgent need for change in the mindset to intervene by peaceful methods of non-violence and compassion for the benefits of the whole of the society from individuals in their neighbourhood, to village, city, country and the world as the only hope, for lasting peace.
Peacekeeping and conflict resolution reforms
In this respect the Brahimi report in 2000 on UN peacekeeping reforms, which established the foundation for a new approach, should be followed. All the peacekeeping missions should have a robust and clearly defined mandate, effective mission planning and appropriate pre-deployment training for all personnel and should be civilian or civilian police. The UN has a long history of conflict prevention as it has been working on it since its inception. The spirit of violence and war on terror can only be broken by addressing root causes of war such as human rights abuses, economic inequalities and ethnic tension. It also needs to change the dynamics that produced such monstrous regimes and groups who engage in such criminal activities. We need to actively help the dangerous regions transform itself into a set of societies that can live in peace with one and another that no longer produce ideologies and terrorists who desire to kill in large numbers and who increasingly have access to technology needed to do so. Internal UN capacity building should be enhanced by devoting the right resources for this important work to prevent violent conflict. UN peacekeeping nurtures new democracies, lowers the global tide of refugees and prevents smaller wars from growing into larger conflicts with much higher costs in terms of lives and resources. UN can help war torn countries return to rule of law and democracy.
A special agency or link should be established solely to address violent conflict and large scale suffering in Africa, a continent where the violent regionalisation of conflict in west central and horn of Africa continues at a tremendous cost in human life and security. This is the most urgent reform UN should initiate.
It is imperative that disputes must be settled peacefully - keeping to the spirit of the UN Charter, Article 2-3 "all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that International Peace and Security, and Justice, are not endangered".
Other reforms for the effectiveness of UN are as follows:
Security Council and General Assembly need to consider how they can effectively curb the threats posed by the proliferation of WMD and International Terrorism. It needs to engage in diplomacy and non-violent intervention without the use of force. The 15 member Security Council should be enlarged to make it more representative. The permanent 5 members of the Security Council should relinquish their veto - wielding power (held for 58 years) in favour of democratic decision making. The Security Council need fairer representation of the geopolitical realities of the present day world in which the UN membership has almost quadrupled to 191. It should include India (With over 1 billion people) and continents of Latin America and Africa should have representation on Security Council. There is a case for Japan and Germany to be included because of their tremendous support and contribution for the UN system. The decisions of Security Council should be made by majority voting and not by veto.
The powers of the General Assembly should be enhanced so that it can play a vital role debating and deciding important international issues including strategic direction in globalisation. At present each autumn it is faced with a daunting agenda and same resolutions year after year are put forward for discussion. Its agenda should be streamlined in order to devote more time to pressing threats and challenges facing the world today.
Another reform of Security Council and General Assembly should be that member states of UN should send elected politicians or peoples assemblies to represent on behalf of their country instead of the present system of appointing bureaucrats.
| The co-ordination between UN agencies and the UN secretariat should be strengthened to make it work better. It needs to shed its image of UN bureaucracy and become into an successful and efficient administration to deliver its priorities. |
| The UN should work closely with member states and in partnership with civil society, non-governmental organisations, private sector and active participation of citizens – wider community and world at large. It needs to develop, evolve, and catchup to ensure that it is engaged with everyone and not just national governments. |
| Since the 1990's the UN system has hosted a range of major conferences and agreed to important goals, treaties, protocols, targets and policies. The UN should ensure that with the help of its agencies and International Community those agreements and treaties (Nuclear Non-proliferation and other disarmament Treaties, Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Millennium Development Goals) are implemented. |
| The most urgent is the requirement for economic co-operation for sustainable development by curbing chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and green house gasses. We need protection and monitoring of global environment to preserve the earth's scarce natural resources by following agenda 21 and Kyoto Accord. |
| UN and other international institutions (International Criminal Court) should see that use of force would be subject to the constraints of International Law, universally upheld rules and norms. A special committee should look into International Law pertaining to military and humanitarian interventions, definition of war crimes, right to use banned weapons (depleted uranium, cluster bombs) and laws of human rights violations. The Security Council should take action against violators of International Law (Governments and Individuals) by referring the cases to International Criminal Court for maintaining peace and security. The conduct of five permanent members of Security Council who use double standards in enforcing international law should be examined by world court. |
| The UN budget, for an organisation with such wide range of responsibilities and interests undoubtedly needs adequate funding to carry out those functions. At present UN operations are run on a shoe string, and it spends less per year on peacekeeping worldwide then is spent on the budgets of the New York City Fire and Police Departments. One needs to evolve practical proposals by which contributions to the UN system can be increased. However there should be proper management of UN budgets and certainly linkage between budget and reform should be established. |
| All efforts should be made to seek ways of building alliances across regional and political groupings. There should be a reform agenda which should look at forming close associations with European Union, the G8, forums from Africa, Asia, Latin America and other worldwide alliances to ensure that we are all working together constructively as we can for the future of our planet. |
| The UN should work towards a more equitable world by allowing poor favourable access to world markets, governments and multilateral organisations. Its most urgent priority should be to give voice to poor (its concerns and problems), disadvantaged and powerless, vast multitude of 2 billion people who live on $1 a day. The UN should help fair trade reforms, debt relief and massive aid to poor countries to reduce socio-economic divide. |
| Part of the UN's problems is due to its poor image, distorted by hostile criticism in the perception of the public and media. This disinformation need to be challenged by facts and in-depth analysis of the positive news and its achievement. The UN should create a culture of communication by using Internet and tapping to the latest technology which should target public, media and policy makers. |
Kofi Annan has appointed a high level UN panel to study global threats and challenges and come up with radical reforms. It will explore the possibility of collective responses to our common problems and challenges. It is acknowledged that the past year has shaken the foundation of collective security and undermined confidence. When US went to war in Iraq without the UN authority, it brought to the top deep divergences of opinion for the range and nature of the challenges we face, and are likely to face in the future.
The aim of the high level panel is to recommend clear and practical measures for ensuring effective collective action, based upon a rigorous analysis of future threats to Peace and Security and appraisal of the actions we can take, and a through assessment of existing approaches, instruments and mechanisms, including the principal organs of the UN.
The future of the UN lies in it as a major contributor of people and ideas. UN should mobilise International civil society and global public opinion to carry forward a vision for a just and fairer world. Its strength is evident from the fact that when the United Nations passes a resolution, it is seen as speaking for humanity as a whole, thus giving it unique legitimacy and support for an action to be taken by a country. We, 191 member states should see to it that it is our reform agenda which will make UN accountable, transparent and democratic decision making body, an organisation fit for facing challenges and threats of 21st Century successfully.
For further information, please contact:
VIJAY MEHTA MA