[Mb-civic] A better UN, for a safer world

Mon Mar 21 11:25:06 PST 2005

Economist.com      

About sponsorship

A better UN, for a safer world
Mar 21st 2005
>From The Economist Global Agenda

The United Nations¹ secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has proposed the most
sweeping reforms of the body since its founding in 1945. If approved, these
would answer many of the strongest criticisms of the UN and should help
rebuild its damaged credibility
AP
AP

Get article background

IF THERE is one thing on which both critics and supporters of the United
Nations agree‹especially since the enormous row over the Iraq war‹it is that
the world body is in need of reform. America and its allies were exasperated
at the UN¹s failure to agree action against Saddam Hussein¹s regime.
Opponents of the war were equally angry at the UN¹s failure to stop America
from launching it. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was the
revolting spectacle of Britain and France sucking up to Lansana Conté, the
tinpot dictator of tiny Guinea, because the UN¹s rules had given him one of
the Security Council¹s rotating seats. Earlier, there was the equally
stomach-churning sight of the tyrannical Libyan regime getting a turn at
chairing the UN¹s Commission on Human Rights. Then there was the gross
embezzlement that has been uncovered in the UN¹s $70 billion oil-for-food
programme in Iraq‹not to mention the UN¹s prolonged inaction while the mass
slaughter has continued in Sudan¹s Darfur region.

Fearing that the UN was sliding into irrelevance, Kofi Annan, its
secretary-general, set up an international panel, mainly of former heads of
government and ministers, which late last year suggested sweeping reforms
(see our profile of Mr Annan). On Monday March 21st, Mr Annan presented his
recommendations for change, based on the panel¹s conclusions, to a gathering
of the UN¹s 191-member General Assembly. He is calling for an expansion of
the Security Council, so that it better reflects the global realities of
today‹though he did not specify how the council¹s membership and veto rules
should be changed. The Commission on Human Rights would, he proposes, be
replaced by a smaller human-rights council, on which it would be harder for
tyrants to get seats. To avoid repeats of past stalemates, the UN would
agree a definition of ³terrorism², which would be incorporated in a new
anti-terror treaty. It would also adopt clearer principles on when military
force is justified.

Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: five
of its 15 seats are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America,
Russia, China, Britain and France), while the remaining 186 countries have
to take turns occupying the remaining ten seats, and have no veto. Japan and
Germany, the second- and third-biggest contributors to the UN budget,
believe they are entitled to permanent seats. So do India, the world¹s
second most populous country, and Brazil, Latin America¹s biggest. Egypt,
Nigeria and South Africa all argue that Africa merits two permanent
seats‹and each thinks it deserves one of them. However, each of the leading
aspirants to a permanent seat has its opponents (Pakistan opposes India,
Mexico opposes Brazil, etc), so years of arguing over reforms to the
council¹s membership have got nowhere.

Mr Annan¹s panel of experts suggested two alternatives, both involving an
expanded council of 24 members. The first option would give permanent seats,
but no veto, to six countries (none is named but probably Germany, Japan,
India, Brazil and two of the three African giants) while creating three
extra rotating seats. Under the second option there would be no new
permanent members but a new middle tier would be created, whose members
would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, unlike the
current, two-year rotating seats. Mr Annan has urged UN members to adopt
either of these options, or failing that something similar.

As for the smaller council that Mr Annan wants to see replace the 53-member
Commission on Human Rights, its members would have to be approved by a
two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In an ideal world, membership
of this and other important UN bodies would be restricted to democracies.
This is far more practicable now than when the UN was founded, since most
populous countries are nowadays, to some degree, democratic. However, the
one that sticks out like a sore thumb is China‹and kicking it out of the
UN¹s main bodies is unthinkable.

Terrorists to some, freedom fighters to others

A commonly agreed definition of terrorism would make it easier for the UN to
agree joint action to curb it. Mr Annan¹s panel achieved unanimity on such a
definition: any act intended ³to cause death or serious bodily harm to
civilians². But some Arab UN members, with Palestine in mind, may still
demand exemptions for those resisting foreign occupation. America and others
might worry that too sweeping a definition risked labelling as terrorism the
bombing of military targets hidden in civilian neighbourhoods, as in Iraq.

The Bush administration would like to see the UN Charter tweaked to let
countries launch preventive strikes without the Security Council¹s
permission, even where no attack seems imminent (eg, where a terrorist group
is about to acquire nuclear know-how but is not yet able to make a bomb).
But Mr Annan and his panel have rejected this idea. Instead, they say the
Security Council should agree clearer rules on when it should authorise
military action against such ³latent² threats. Mr Annan has also called on
the UN to embrace the principle that member countries have a ³responsibility
to protect² civilians suffering atrocities when their own government is
failing to act. This has UN-watchers excited, as it would mean moving away
from one of the organisation's founding principles, respect for national
sovereignty.

These are but a few in the long list of big changes that Mr Annan pressed
the UN to adopt on Monday. The aim is for the General Assembly to hold a
special summit in September to approve the reform package. A 23-country
opinion survey commissioned by the BBC, published on Monday, suggests
widespread public support for an overhaul of the UN along the lines Mr Annan
is proposing. In every participating country except Russia, a majority
supported the expansion of the Security Council. In most countries (even
including America), a majority backed making the UN ³significantly² more
powerful.

Even so, it will be tough to get the two-thirds majority among member
countries that Mr Annan¹s reforms will need. Even those that ought to
command unanimity, such as a drastic shake-out of bureaucracy and corruption
in UN bodies, are likely to run up against some governments¹ vested
interests at some stage. The final report on the oil-for-food scandal, due
soon, may so damage Mr Annan and some senior colleagues that the credibility
of his reform package is damaged. Now, amid unprecedented consensus about
the UN¹s shortcomings, the chances of reforming it should be strongest. But
it could all too easily descend into the sort of futile squabbling for which
the General Assembly has become infamous.