Rethinking the UN
After a bruising year, the United Nations is looking to a new panel of experts to help stave off irrelevancy. Jaideep Mukerji investigates
Speaking at the United Nations General Assembly last month, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan announced the creation of a 16-member panel on Threats, Challenges and Change designed to help "rethink" the way the UN works. The ambitious plan comes at the end of what was an undeniably hard year for the UN, marked by its failure to resolve the Iraq crisis, the continuing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the disturbing fact that UN institutions themselves are now terrorist targets.
"We have come to a fork in the road," Annan told the General Assembly. "History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass."
The panel has been given broad terms of reference that focus on allowing the UN to fulfil its mandate of maintaining peace and security in the world. Annan told the assembly that the panel's recommendations would likely include "far- reaching institutional reforms". In particular, Annan requested the panel tackle thorny issues such as reforming the UN Security Council, restructuring the way various UN organs operate and developing ways to better regulate the use of force in crisis situations.
The move is a welcome development according to Don Kraus, executive director of the Washington-based Council for United Nations Reform. Kraus's organisation has been pressuring the international community to make serious changes to the UN for years.
"The [current UN] system doesn't work. Many people liken it to a volunteer fire department that you pull together every time there is a fire. Actually, it is worse than that. You first have to go to city council to have a debate on whether the house is on fire. Then they pass a resolution to decry that the house is on fire and eventually they actually get around to doing something about it, which usually doesn't work," he told Al-Ahram Weekly.
While there have been attempts made in the past to reform the UN, the broad mandate and considerable clout of the panel's members is for some a sign that it might succeed where others have failed. The panel will be headed by former Thai Prime Minister Anand Panyarachun and includes members such as Inter-American Development Bank President Enrique V Iglesias and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa.
Gareth Evans, a former Australian foreign affairs minister and current president of International Crisis Group also sits on the panel. Speaking from his office in Brussels, he told the Weekly that "The multilateral system is in considerable disarray following what happened in Iraq and a series of other concerns that have been growing over the years. There are a lot of people who see this [panel] as the best hope for some time. Rethinking these issues and getting some new ideas and proposals on the table will hopefully break some of the stalemates [the UN has faced]."
One of the most pressing issues will be making the Security Council more effective, particularly in addressing crises similar to the one in Iraq. The Council was paralysed last year over divisions amongst the permanent members on how best to deal with the Iraq crisis. The United States ultimately rallied a "coalition of the willing" which bypassed the UN and used the concept of preemptive strikes to justify its invasion of Iraq.
According to Evans, the key to preventing such crises in future is to create a framework within the Security Council that allows for an "agreement on certain rules and guidelines on the application of those rules. When the Security Council makes up its mind to go to war, the UN should go to war. If it decides not to go to war, then it shouldn't. An awful lot of responsibility falls on the Security Council, so when it abdicates that responsibility, as I believe it did in Kosovo in 1999 and the other cases in the 1990s like Bosnia-Herzegovina, [the UN] has to anticipate that others will sometimes take decisions outside the UN like the kind we saw in Iraq in 2003."
Kraus, however, feels that the Security Council's problems extend beyond rules and guidelines to the very structure of its membership. "The Council is an institution that is petrified in time. The permanent five are the nuclear-capable victors of World War II. What we need is a Security Council that is representative of how our world is today." Kraus suggests modifying and possibly even eliminating the veto power enjoyed by France, Britain, the US, Russia and China. Kraus also says that the panel should look at ways to better balance geographic and regional interests among the Security Council's permanent members and incorporate a weighted voting system that would give more power to countries with higher populations. "What you want is a system that changes as the world does," he says.
While Evans welcomes such input, he points out that coming up with ideas is not the real challenge facing him and his colleagues. "There is no shortage of good ideas as to how to fix the UN. There is, however, an acute shortage of political will." Evans pointed out that any recommendations made by the panel will have to pass through the Security Council. "There are many obvious problems with the Security Council, [but] there are equally obvious problems in trying to change that structure given the entrenched role the five permanent members who can veto any change they don't like."
Despite the difficulties, Evans is optimistic that he and his colleagues will be able to meet with a measure of success. Evans said he is "impressed" by the amount of positive feedback and encouragement he has received thus far, and looks forward to his first meeting with the other panel members in a few weeks.
"If we just rehash the same old themes in the same old way it is not going to make much difference in the international community. My own hope is that we will be adventurous and creative while at the same time necessarily realistic."
Kraus wishes the panel luck, but worries that their report may simply be left "to gather dust on the shelf". His organisation has monitored past efforts to reform the UN and points out that "there have been many other high level reports in the past that have come out with great fanfare and then not been acted on."
The international community will not have to wait too long to find out if the panel's findings will be adopted or discarded. Annan asked the panel to complete their report and present their findings at the UN's next General Assembly in 2004. That is when the UN's commitment to reform will really be tested by the extent to which they are willing to implement the report's proposals.
