Reform or Revolution?

23 March 2005



Annan Proposes Changes at UN

When the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco in 1945, it original signatories numbered 51. That number included the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which went out of business in 1991. Missing from that list are nations such as India (which was part of the British Empire until 1949) as well as Germany and Japan, the defeated Axis powers. There are now 191 member states, and the world is a much different place sixty years on. Thus, it was good to see Secretary General Kofi Annan's plan to reform the UN. But the question is really whether reform is needed, or whether a revolution is in order.

At the end of the Second World War, the UN's composition and structure were largely reflective of political realities. The Security Council's permanent members had a veto because Comrade Stalin insisted on it. India had no seat, as noted above, because it was not independent. That said, the UN Charter never really went into full effect (e.g., most provisions of Chapter VII) because of Soviet and American rivalry known as the Cold War. Indeed, UN intervention in the Korean War only occurred because of a foolish walk-out protest by the Soviets that denied them a chance to veto the American plan to help South Korea.

If the UN was snake bit from the beginning, the passage of time has done nothing to improve its effectiveness as an international body. The Rwanda genocide and the UN's inaction only proves this in spades. But the UN is only as good as its member states let it be. To date, it has been a useful venue for nations to talk that wouldn't talk elsewhere. And on those rare occasions when there is a sense of global unanimity on international questions, it allows that sentiment ready expression. However, the "sovereign equality of states," first established in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, is a nonsense. For instance, Haiti doesn't have the same power as the US, for good or for ill, and any system that doesn't recognize that, is doomed to fail.

The secretary-general's proposals are interesting. A larger Security Council, a streamlined agenda for the General Assembly, and new guidelines for the use of force might be useful. Replacing the Commission on Human Rights with a Human Rights Council is a bureaucratic non-event. Better co-ordination of aid and environmental agendas is a matter of trying, and a zero tolerance policy on abuses by UN peacekeepers sounds like a good idea (and like all zero tolerance policies is an excuse not to consider individual cases as individual cases). But they won't fix the underlying issues.

Many of the world's problems are no longer military security issues. Europe isn't going to have a major war among its constituent states for the foreseeable future. Instead, low-level violence, pollution, disease and poverty are on the agenda of the 21st century. America's criticism of the UN is largely neo-con ranting, but there is a shred of truth in it. The UN isn't very effective, and it would be better if that could change. Perhaps the UN should authorize member states to undertake certain activities on behalf of the global community rather than create yet another ineffective program administered by UN bureaucrats. This, of course, would require a revolution in how the world views the UN.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home

Google
WWW Kensington Review







Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More