[Dialogue] Reflections on the UN Reform from Al-Ahram Weekly

Sat Sep 24 13:29:02 EDT 2005

Put out to pasture

Last week's world summit at the UN proves that the organisation, according
to American wishes, is dead in the water, writes Hassan Nafaa*
<http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/print/2005/761/op2.htm#1>  

  _____  

Kofi Annan had imagined that the 60th anniversary of the UN was a good time
to refurbish the organisation and shore up its international clout.
Evidently, he was too optimistic. Annan thought that the UN, demoralised and
weakened by spreading international chaos, could be salvaged. His
assumptions were neither unreasonable nor excessively romantic.
International organisations, just as nations and governments, are, at least
theoretically capable of being rejuvenated, but only if decision-makers have
the political will to do so, and only if leadership is assumed by a new
generation determined to do things differently. In that particular aspect,
organisations are at an advantage compared to people. People age and
therefore need to pull out of public life at some point. But organisations
can become young again. They can be steered back on track.

Kofi Annan is not naïve. He knew that it would be hard in the current
international climate to introduce a major reform of organisations created
in the post- war period. This is why he proceeded with caution, making
careful and quiet preparations. For some time now, he has been introducing
budget cuts and streamlining administrative structures in line with the US
vision of reform. He put together numerous task forces that examined the
international situation, diagnosed the ills of the current international
system, and looked into the various sources of threat to individuals,
countries and societies. And his advisers came up with suggestions on how to
address, remove, or eliminate existing threats.

Annan got major international figures involved in this effort. He enlisted
the help of distinguished people from across the globe, including Americans
and Europeans. One team of extraordinary membership was the High-Level Panel
on Threats, Challenges and Change. Annan formed that panel in 2003 and asked
it to look into current international threats and propose ways of addressing
contemporary problems. The secretary-general then collated and summarised
the conclusions and proposals he was given. He submitted these in the
document In Larger Freedom, which he sent to all UN member states months
ahead of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Annan was hoping that
the document would rally the international consensus needed to restore
vigour to the aging organisation. Once this document was circulated, Annan
called on heads of state to come to the General Assembly session and discuss
the matter over the first three days (14-16 September) of the meetings.

In Larger Freedom is moderate in wording and ambition. Some would say its
writers caved in to US pressure. And yet the report notes that the major
threats to peoples the world over are poverty, disease, natural disasters,
organised crimes, arms trafficking and drug dealing. The report does not
discount other threats, such as terror and weapons of mass destruction, but
it makes it plain that hunger victims outnumber terror victims. 

According to In Larger Freedom, one billion people live on less than one
dollar a day each, and that every year 11 million child die before the age
of five due to malnutrition and disease. The report calls on rich countries
to fulfil their promise to cut poverty by half by 2015. The report does not
suggest an increase in the proposed ratio of international aid, which is 0.7
per cent of national income. The secretary-general, however, called for a
timetable to ensure that aid reaches that level by 2015. As of 2006, Annan
said, rich countries should bring their expenditure on international
assistance to at least 0.5 per cent of their national income.

The secretary-general implicitly endorsed the idea of conditionality in
international aid, in the sense that aid to Third World countries would be
linked to the progress these countries make in human rights, good
governance, free trade and similar matters. On the matter of mutual
responsibility and accountability, Annan said that the international
community has a collective responsibility to fight poverty, but is entitled
in return to monitor spending and keep track of progress made on human
rights and good governance.

Theoretically speaking, this is fine. But who is to speak on behalf of the
international community on matters of accountability? It would make sense
that international organisations, including the UN and its agencies, would
assume such a role. But the secretary-general does not go into that, for he
knows that the US is opposed to any collective responsibility in matters of
development.

In Larger Freedom calls for the creation of an international fund to support
democracy and for a human rights council to replace the UN Commission on
Human Rights -- all of which are things that mirror US thinking. The report
calls for amending the UN charter so as to abolish the references to "enemy
states", a phrase that used to refer to axis countries such as Germany and
Japan.

Alarmingly, the same document calls for the abrogation of the Military Staff
Committee (MSC), despite the central role the UN charter assigns to that
body. The MSC is the entity responsible for determining the size and quality
of forces member states should put at the disposal of the UN Security
Council to enable it to intervene militarily when needed. It is the entity
that should manage field operations once intervention is underway. It is
true that the Cold War rendered the committee ineffective, but now that the
Soviet Union is gone, there is no reason for the committee to remain
inactive. Apparently, the secretary-general knew in advance that the US
opposes the revival of the committee's work. The US consistently refuses to
place any international force under a non-American command, even that of a
committee subordinate to the UN Security Council.

As for the enlargement and reform of the UN Security Council, the
secretary-general offered no new proposals, asking the world to simply
choose between two formulas suggested by the High-Level Panel. The panel had
agreed that the total number of seats should be 24, divided equally among
four continents, with six to each continent. 

There are two proposed formulas for change. According to the first formula,
six new permanent seats would be created in addition to the current five.
The six new permanent seats will be distributed as follows: two for Africa,
two for Asia, one for Europe, and one for the Americas. The non-permanent
seats, 13 in total, will be divided as follows: four to Africa, three to
Asia, two for Europe, and four for the Americas.

According to the second formula, the number of permanent seats remains five,
but eight semi- permanent seats are to be created, each renewable every four
years. These eight semi-permanent seats are to be divided equally among four
continents, each getting two. The non-permanent seats, 11 in total, would be
distributed as follows: four for Africa, three for Asia, one for Europe, and
three for the Americas.

Modest as these proposals are, they are a step towards reforming the UN. And
yet the world summit failed to endorse any. This is hardly surprising. One
would have guessed so since President Bush named John Bolton US ambassador
to the UN. As I mentioned in an earlier commentary, "Bolton would set out to
tackle the UN reform with a greater doze of vulgarity than usual, for he
would have to block any international agreement that is not to the US
liking. The first item of business for Bolton would be to scuttle any
attempt to reach an agreement over the reform agenda at the UN General
Assembly meetings in September." Sadly, I was right.

The world summit has carried out US wishes and sent the UN into virtual
retirement. Although the UN legal functions remain intact, the organisation
can no longer get anything done unless on orders from the US. Any hope that
the UN would serve as a forum for the collective management of the
international system is gone.

* The writer is professor of political science, Cairo University. 

Al-Ahram Weekly Online : Located at:
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/761/op2.htm 

Peace,

Harry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20050924/9140b2fa/attachment.htm