 |
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly On-line 21 - 27 September 2000 Issue No. 500
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
|
||
Egypt Elections Development Region International Economy Opinion Culture Features Special Travel Living Sports Profile People Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters Spinning the world's ills
By Hassan Nafaa
The gathering of 150 heads of state and government at the United Nations headquarters in New York was unprecedented; never before has there been a summit on such a scale. True, the UN hosted a similar event in 1960 to mark the 25th anniversary of its founding -- an event at which a large number of international leaders attended. But at the time, the UN was not as globally representative as it is today. The People's Republic of China, whose population makes up a fifth of the world's inhabitants, was still excluded from UN activities, and many nations had not yet thrown off their colonial yoke.
The Millennium Summit was thus the first truly global summit and, for this reason alone, it fully merits its accolade as a momentous historical event; one that offered a unique opportunity for a universal airing of views. However, did the Millennium Summit accomplish what people had hoped it would? Certainly not. The world is in dire need of something more concrete than the mellifluously-worded closing statement of the summit. It needs a far more pertinent answer to the problems of the current international order, in which the manifestations of power -- weapons, money, science and technology -- have a far greater say in shaping the political and social circumstances of mankind than do values, morals, culture and ideas.
Casting only a cursory glance over the many conflicts taking place on this planet, one is easily alarmed to see that perils seem to have grown in direct proportion to advances in science and technology. Whereas war between nations once presented the primary threat to mankind, new and even deadlier dangers jeopardise our well-being. Environmental pollution, global warming, widespread drought and desertification have become a menace to our very existence, not to mention civil wars, corruption, drug trafficking, organised crime, terrorism and malnutrition.
That there has not been another world war in over half a century may seem to suggest that mankind has entered an unprecedented phase of maturity in its efforts to end one of the greatest threats to life. Unfortunately, this is an overly optimistic view. The fact is that the human and material losses mankind has sustained during the second half of the 20th century as the result of warfare, internecine strife and other perils is far greater than the toll of the two world wars.
It was a universal aspiration for a better future that people around the world believed that the Millennium Summit would serve as a frank and courageous start to remedying the perils that threaten us all. Seeking refuge in flowery language, the summit unfortunately offered nothing substantial to meet these hopes. To read the closing statement of the summit one would think that the leaders of the world have isolated the source of the world's maladies and identified the cure. The statement admits that the rewards of globalisation are distributed unfairly and that this inequity must be addressed, with regard to international governance and financial systems. World leaders also renewed their commitment to putting an end to the evils of war, terrorism, poverty, weapons of mass destruction and all other threats to international peace and security.
However, lofty sentiments alone do not go far in preventing the injustices arising from America's global hegemony, or in enabling the UN to effectively fulfill the remit under its charter. And, sadly, all the affirmations and pledges made in the closing statement of the Millennium Summit will remain no more than empty promises, for a very simple reason -- it failed to specify any mechanisms or means of financing that would make it possible to work towards the fulfillment of these promises.
The current international order is founded upon a number of principles of international law, such as equality in sovereignty among UN member nations and non-intervention in a nation's domestic affairs. Under the growing interdependence between nations, it has become obvious that the concept of absolute sovereignty is no longer feasible because ruling cliques have been restrained in the conduct of domestic affairs. Indeed, the intervention of the international community in areas that were once considered to lie within the domestic realm is now, in the opinion of many, a vital duty. At the very least, such intervention requires a legal or political frame of reference to determine the boundaries between national and international responsibilities. The summit made no attempt to resolve this problem.
Generally, the efficacy of the international order is gauged by the extent to which its relevant agencies can deter or contain aggression, which, in the final analysis, requires a clear definition of the concept of aggression itself. In the Cold War era, there was at least a general consensus that the term "aggression" applied to any unjustifiable or illegal military action undertaken by one or more nations against one or more states. However, today defining aggression has become immeasurably more complex. Illegal speculation on the international financial markets, the dumping of nuclear waste and support of terrorist organisations can all lead to untold damage.
A third, and related, problem facing international institutions pertains to their membership. When national governments were the primary operative agents in international affairs it was natural for representation in international bodies to be restricted to governments. However, today, when national governments yield influence to international NGOs and transnational companies, the persistence of an exclusively governmental mode of membership can only further undermine the efficacy and prestige of such bodies as the UN. Although the UN has clearly sought to provide a forum for international NGOs -- inviting large numbers of them to attend the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the Human Rights Conference in Vienna and the Population and Development Conference in Cairo -- no one at the Millennium Summit dared to suggest drafting a code to regulate the conduct of the non-governmental players in international politics.
Nor was there an earnest attempt to democratise the UN further. The principle of equality between member nations entails ensuring that all are entitled to participate in the decision-making process on the basis of one nation, one vote. However, this can be a cumbersome process, and there are occasions when the UN must act quickly to marshal the material and human resources necessary to handle emergencies. The initial solution was to create a body of limited membership (the Security Council) alongside the General Assembly, which represents all member nations without distinction. However, this required unanimity among the permanent members of that body, a condition that was never fulfilled during the Cold War. Thus, the very prescription for ensuring the efficacy of the apparatus responsible for international peace and security became its most obvious shortcoming.
Ironically, when the end of the Cold War restored a measure of vitality to the Security Council, its structural deficiencies became more glaring. The Security Council could take unconstitutional decisions that were beyond the capacity of any other international body to check. Simultaneously, the collapse of the Soviet Union illustrated that the current configuration of membership in the Security Council does not represent the balance of power in the "new" international order. The selection of the permanent and semi-permanent members of the Security Council need to guarantee a fairer and more accurate representation of the international community. Once again, the Millennium Summit did not broach any of these issues.
Although the UN Charter has attempted to define the relationship between international and regional organisations, it never functioned properly during the Cold War, when spheres of influence supplanted the notion of collective security. But the end of the Cold War has hardly revived the system of collective security. Instead, NATO has assumed new powers beyond its original remit. Any practical step towards resolving problems endemic to the UN will help create a safer world. For leaders to content themselves with lofty words can only undermine the credibility of global summitry.
Related stories:
A world of meanings
Crocodile tears
Pomp and circumstance
