Revamping the UN

Thus, the initiative of the UN Secretary General and his ambitious but farsighted plan put forth in September 2003 to have a body, constituted of eminent persons representing all the continents of the globe, "to assess current threats to international peace and security; to evaluate how our existing policies and institutions have done in addressing those threats; and to make recommendations for strengthening the United Nations so that it can provide collective security for all in the twenty -first century" deserves our appreciation.

Despite the cynics' assessment of Kofi Annan's motivations in constituting such a body, with such far-reaching tasks, his intentions surely speak of his boldness in addressing the issue of UN reforms, something that was a matter of common discourse for a long time, yet did not apparently merit the attention of any of the Secretaries General since the end of the Cold War.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

There is perhaps some value in the argument that it was the realisation of the abject haplessness and impotence of the world body to restrain truant states and to rein in the powerful ones that acted as the Secretary General's motivation. While these factors may have prompted the Secretary General to seek recommendations from a versatile panel to strengthen the UN, it is also true that the UN might willy-nilly go the way of the much-maligned League of Nations unless changes are effected in it.

There is a litany of criticism of the UN's failures and of the systemic flaws that have prevented timely action in cases where human lives were under threat.

Rwanda is a case in point, where the inaction of the UN, its failure to initiate timely measures, led to the decimation, literally, of a country's population; a fact which has been acknowledged by the current Secretary General himself.

Its helplessness in the face of US double standards on the Middle East has exposed the captive nature of the system in the hands of the big powers, particularly of the lone super power. Angola, Somalia, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia were at one time touted by critics as UN failures, but subsequent events have helped mute this criticism somewhat. Therefore, to suggest that UN mediation, and in some cases its presence in a conflict area, accentuated rather than attenuated the intensity of the conflict is also a travesty of truth.

There is also, according to one critic, a "broad lack of accountability that prevails amid a swelling sea of credible accusations against UN staffers of sexual harassment, human rights abuses, conflict of interest, gross corruption, and even meddling in the US presidential election." Those not familiar with the inner workings of the UN would be shocked at the level of corruption and the wasteful culture of the UN.

But, for every conflict that has occurred during its lifetime, the UN has prevented two more from taking place. For every person that has died due to its inaction, its intervention, both humanitarian and in other circumstances, has saved the lives of many more that number. It has helped to bring about the longest post WWII inter-state war, that between Iran and Iraq, to a peaceful conclusion. It helped mediate the withdrawal of the Soviets from Afghanistan and assisted Cambodia transit from a situation of intra-state conflict to a broad based coalition government. The end of the civil war in El Salvador owes much to the efforts of the UN and its peacemaking mechanism.

A very significant aspect that the critics of the UN overlook is the fact that its peacekeeping as well as peacemaking efforts have kept situations in many potentially explosive environments from deteriorating. Interestingly, the world body, whose avowed goal was to "prevent the succeeding generations from the scourge of war" had nothing in its charter that provided for it to undertake missions, either to make or enforce peace, of the type we are now so familiar with. In fact, over the years the UN has gradually arrogated this task to itself, which now has come to be one of its main preoccupations. And who can deny that the world would be very much the worse but for this particular role of the UN.

Has it failed us in recent times? By not validating a patently unlawful act, that of the wrongful US-led invasion of Iraq, it has at least made its position clear on the illegality of the US action, even if the UN did not have any mechanism to prevent the US from undertaking it.

The panel's 95 page report, submitted to the Secretary General on December 2, contains as many as 101 recommendations that cover a very broad spectrum of issues, from war to poverty, revamping the Security Council and other UN bodies, and a restructuring of the UN bureaucracy.

Not unexpectedly, there was lack of unanimity in the panel insofar as expanding the Security Council is concerned, and as a way out, the panel has suggested two alternative models as a basis for discussion by the member states.

Another very significant aspect of the exercise is the reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter that deals with rules governing the use of force in self-defence to deter imminent threat, which has been kept unchanged. However, in an oblique reference to the US, the panel has opined that no state has the right to use force preventively when the threat is latent but not imminent. Interestingly, the US member on the panel Brent Scowcroft, Bush-the-elder's national security adviser believes that the UN "remains the best forum to deal collectively with threats."

The panel has taken the very bold step of defining terrorism, something that has defied a universal characterisation over the last three decades. It will be interesting to see the response of the member states to this when they meet next September to discuss the report.

The issue of revamping the Security Council took up a good part of the panel's time. There are many member states that are vying for a permanent seat on it. But one wonders whether increasing the size of the Security Council will enhance its performance?

While one would like to see the Security Council be more representative, it should be kept in mind that being more representative may not necessarily make it more effective.

Some member states consider the Security Council to be a "Brahmin Club" and aspiration to its membership remains a cherished desire, not so much for the wish to better the world as for the need to gain a status symbol that a permanent membership of the Security Council accords.

As for the criticism that the UN has been less effective than it might have been, this is perhaps valid. But is the UN to be blamed for its failures or are those that are constituent elements of the world's body who ran the system responsible for its poor performance?

The point at issue is: do the big powers including the US really want any substantive changes in the world body? Will the UN really be able to provide a regime of collective security, as articulated by the Secretary General, or will it remain an elusive utopian desire?

Nobody would deny that the UN has been less than perfect. However, It would be unrealistic to expect a perfect institution in the midst of an imperfect world that we live in.

An institution can be only as good as its members want it to be and only as effective as its members will allow it to be.

The author is Editor, Defense and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.