The United Nations: Reforms and challenges

Critics have also pointed out that the United Nations has failed to exploit conditions that emerged after the end of the Cold War. It has been suggested in this context that the United Nations could have done much more in a unipolar world -- particularly in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and in many countries in Africa. Many have also underlined UN failures that persist through occupation in Palestine.

This catalogue of under-achievement on the political front has been accompanied by charges of mismanagement, corruption and lack of transparency in a bloated international bureaucracy.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

US legislators have particularly reiterated their criticism more than once. A bipartisan task force led by former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Democrat Senator George Mitchell, supported by Representative Henry Hyde has not only raised the question of reforms within the United Nations but also suggested that unless this was done, there could be possible withholding of US dues to the United Nations (a totally irresponsible and controversial threat).

All these factors created great pressure on the United Nations and its policy formulation elite. The UN Secretary General and his close advisers, not insensitive to prevailing international criticism, undertook efforts not only to tackle the situation but also to introduce reform through stronger and more independent oversight mechanisms.

The UN Secretary General constituted a Committee to recommend measures that might bring about reforms within the United Nations. Their Special Report has since been circulated. It proposes several important steps for re-structuring the UN, for initiating reforms within the Organisation and for restoring its credibility.

It inter-alia calls for expansion of the Security Council, adoption of guidelines to determine when military action can be authorised and proposes radical changes in the existing mechanism for stricter observance of human rights, boosting of global trade and the much-needed overhaul of the UN bureaucracy.

It was felt that such a study was required given the growth in UN membership (from 51 to 191 in sixty years), drastic changes in world order (unipolar), threats and challenges and charges of corruption and mismanagement in the oil for food programme, human rights violations in Sudan and elsewhere and revelations of sexual exploitations by some UN peacekeepers in Congo.

This Report has also dealt with the very sensitive question of expansion of the Security Council. The UNSG believes that the SC membership should be raised to 24 from the existing 15. He has given two options and left it to world leaders to make their own choice. These are -- (a) add 6 new permanent members as well as 3 new two-year term members, or (b) create a new tier of 8 semi-permanent members chosen for renewable four-year terms and one additional two-year term seat added to the existing ten. Importantly, the right to cast vetoes under both the options has been restricted to the original five permanent members. It may be recalled here that the last expansion of the SC took place in 1965, when the membership was raised from 10 to 15.

In short, the Report has unleashed a political cyclone within the United Nations General Assembly ahead of its Regular Session that is expected to start later on in September this year. Sub-regional groups, regional organisations and vested interests have all surfaced with their often conflicting demands. Enormous attention is particularly being given to the prospect of an expanded Security Council with additional permanent members. Some countries have banded themselves together as potential saviours while others are busy discovering reasons as to why inclusion of such candidates will not properly reflect the strategic nature of contemporary international relations.

The prime contenders for the permanent membership -- Brazil, India, Germany and Japan (also known as G4) -- and other aspirants like Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa would obviously prefer the first option within the Report, and if possible, with veto powers. They however face, for obvious reasons, serious challenges from Argentina, Italy, Pakistan and South Korea. There is also simmering discontent from China with regard to Japan's inclusion into this expansion exercise. Members of the OIC have also gone on record and have asked for one permanent seat for a Muslim country.

Anticipating disagreement, the G4 is now proposing that the existing 15- member Council be expanded to 25. It is also being suggested that six new permanent members would first be added, and then four non-permanent ones (with special attention being paid to Africa and Latin America). This plan also anticipates that the new permanent members will have 'the same responsibilities and obligations' as the current five permanent members, without the right of veto (at least for the time being). It also envisages that if the G4 resolution is adopted, then countries, interested in obtaining a permanent seat, would be asked to submit their candidacies to a vote by a secret ballot of members.

It is understood that the G4 resolution submitted in this regard for the consideration of the General Assembly has the backing of about thirty co-sponsors including France. G4 countries feel they have a reasonable chance. They have already received the support of the 15-member Caribbean community (Caricom) and expect the majority of the 53-member African Union to vote in their favour.

The G4 group however also knows that it is not going to be very easy. Any expansion of the Security Council would involve amendment of the UN Charter and an approval of at least two-thirds of the total members of the UN.

One thing is clear: The future ahead is complex and that the attitude of the US will be critical for this process. The US till now, has openly expressed support only for Japan, given the fact that Japan is already paying 19.5 per cent of all expenditure undertaken by the UN (including peacekeeping operations). Despite several Summit level discussions, open support has still not been indicated for the other three among the G4. Consequently, the scenario, as it stands today, is still fraught with sensitive implications.

The next UNGA session in September this year will be interesting, but at the end of the day, might not be as completely productive as anticipated by the G4.

Nevertheless, there are other areas where reforms could be introduced within the UN structure without too much of ado. This includes the following -- streamlining the agenda and committee structure of the UN General Assembly and making the UN's human rights machinery more credible and more authoritative.

Kofi Annan, the UNSG has already correctly suggested that the present Commission on Human Rights could be replaced with a Human Rights Council, whose members would set an example by applying the standards they are charged to uphold. Similarly, it would be useful and meaningful if an efficient mechanism could be created within the UN to coordinate and sustain the work of helping countries making the transition from war to peace. This would be particularly helpful is Central and West Africa.

After this comes several other issues that are continuing to challenge the UN: the environment, international trade, fighting AIDS and HIV and poverty reduction. In all these areas, the US has proved to be the pivotal factor. Its absence from the Kyoto Protocol, withdrawal from the International Criminal Court, insistence on subsidies in agriculture, opposition to the sharing of R and D related to generic medicine and insufficient support for reproductive health and family planning -- have all contributed to serious delimitations for multilateral initiatives.

We in Bangladesh have been concerned about UN reforms for some time. We have also pointed out that the consultations for the reform process should be broad-based and not be guided by perceived interests of the few. In addition, we have also strongly endorsed the UNSG's call to developed countries to increase development assistance and debt relief, grant of immediate duty-free and quota-free market access to all LDC export and the raising of their ODA.

The UN is an important crucible for fulfilling aspirations. Despite many setbacks, the UN has made the world a better place over the last six decades. We have to move forward and overcome shared problems and threats still affecting global peace and security. We cannot afford to fail, as we did, in the latest review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In more ways than one, it was irresponsible. We have to find least common denominators and overcome the threats posed by poverty, disease, environmental degradation, bad governance and civil conflict.

Nearly 180 political leaders will assemble in New York later this year. They will have to rise over their individual interests and forge a common platform. Only then, will be have true reform within the United Nations.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador -- any response to mzamir@dhaka.net.