|
|
|
|
The Everest of Change....Reforming the United Nations |
| Published On: 10-16-2005 |
|
Related Issue Briefs:
|
|
|
September 2005’s World Summit at the U.N. headquarters in New York whet the reform-hungry appetites of many world leaders. The outcome of the summit was viewed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan as "a glass at least half-full" 1. There were some qualified successes and goals achieved by the end of the historic summit. Commitments were made in many areas, such as development, terrorism, peace building and human rights.
Nonetheless countries involved were not able to reach commitments on a number of key issues, including: arms control and non-proliferation, representation on the UN Security Council and the needs of developing countries. This recent moment of U.N. reform is just the latest chapter in a long-term process.
The triumphs at the September 2005 World Summit were as varied as the body that enacted them, ranging from development to terrorism. The General Assembly affirmed its commitment to achieve the Millennium Goals of 2015 and agreed on spending an additional $150 billion a year by 2010 to fight poverty. Offering "an unqualified condemnation…of terrorism ‘in all its forms and manifestations," 2the members agreed to finish a convention on terrorism within the year and decided to form a global counter-terrorism plan.
Committed to continuing the fight for global human rights, the General Assembly also declared the collective responsibility of preventing genocide and crimes against humanity. It also acted to strengthen the authority of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and expand the U.N.’s capacity for peace by establishing an outline of a new Peace-building Commission. A proposal for a new Human Rights Council was accepted, but some, such as the Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, were wary that the Council, like previous initiatives, would include some of the worst rights abusers. Others, such as Belarus were displeased that subjective rules for electing members of this Council deviated from the UN Charter.
The omissions from 2005 World Summit Outcome were varied as well and led to a luke-warm reception of the achievements. The failure to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was seen as one of the summit’s greatest failures. Disagreements between member states focused on whether to strengthen the NPT or to focus on other steps towards disarmament. 3Egypt, among other countries, called for greater attention to the needs of developing countries, such as strengthening the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), an African initiative for development, socio-economic advancement and the promotion of good governance and civil society. Guyana felt that developing countries need to have a larger say in the decision-making processes involving development issues. Mongolia noted that debt–relief should be considered comprehensively, taking into account the history and impact of the debt and the country’s capacity to repay4.
The reforms called for in the 2005 Summit were not new. Calls for reform of the global body were formalized when Secretary General Kofi Annan initiated an official reform program soon after his installation in January 19975. From there, the debate has ensued. Some called for increased U.N. power and presence around the globe. Following Annan’s lead, the U.N. investigated and published The Brahimi Report in 2000, which outlined reforms and changes for UN peacekeeping operations; The 2002 Agenda for Future Change; and The 2004 Overhaul of Staff Security Systems.
In the words of Secretary General Annan:
From overhauling basic management practices and building a more transparent, efficient and effective United Nations system to revamping our major intergovernmental institutions so that they reflect today’s world and advance the priorities set forth in the present report, we must reshape the Organization in ways not previously imagined and with a boldness and speed not previously shown6.
Arguably, the most specific ideas of UN reform center on a redesign of the UN Security Council. When it was formed in 1945, the Council was made up of the five most powerful countries in a post-Second-World-War world: The United States, The United Kingdom, The People’s Republic of China, The French Republic and The Russian Federation. The remaining ten seats are elected to two-year terms by regional groups and confirmed by the General Assembly. Five seats are elected every year: there are three African seats, two South American, two Asian, two from the WEOG group (Western Europe and others, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Turkey and the United States) and one for Eastern Europe7.
Given the dramatic changes that the world has undergone since the Security Council’s formation, it is no surprise that countries such as Japan, Brazil, India and Germany are demanding permanent seats on the Security Council, while others simply want to expand their regional representation or chance to sit. According to International Law expert Dr. Ruth Wedgwood, "Japan and Germany account for 25-30 percent of world GDP, and as such, they are the second and third largest contributors to the regular U.N. budget" so it seems only logical that they demand a permanent veto-eligible seat8.
Recently, the calls for reform have become louder and more numerous. In June 2005, on the heels of the Oil-for-Food Scandal9, the United States House of Representatives passed "The United Nations Reform Bill". This bill demands action on 32 of 39 listed reforms by 2008 or threatens to withhold 50 percent of the United States’ annual funding for the U.N. 10. A follow-up bill, "The UN Management, Personnel and Policy Act" was introduced in the Senate in July 2005, and had similar provisions although it required the U.S. president to provide an annual report of U.N. progress while allowing the issue of withholding funds to be one of presidential decision and discretion.
More recently, American Interests and UN Reform, a report published early in 2005 by a joint task force co-chaired by Former U.S. Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich and Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell had the following to say about reform in the United Nations: "As it approaches its 60th anniversary, the United Nations needs reform and reinvigoration, otherwise, the organization risks declining credibility, and its own future will be at risk". According to the report: "New, adapted, and reformed institutions, authorities, and mechanisms are needed if the United Nations is to meet today's challenges. Such reform is necessary and desirable. 11"
Reform is a process not a one-time event. As the needs of the world are constantly changing there will always be a need to improve the United Nations. With 191 member states, representing democracies, theocracies, dictatorships and everything in-between, no one institution will ever be able to provide policies that will satisfy everyone and address every need. Nonetheless, it is an important process and one that will continue for years to come.
For further information, read:
Report on the High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004:
http://www.un.org/secureworld/report2.pdf
American Interest and UN Reform, Report of the Task Force on the United Nations. Mitchell-Gingrich Report, June 2005: http://www.usip.org/un/index.html.
Revised Draft Outcome Document of the High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly, 5 August 2005; www.un.org/ga/59/hlpm_rev.2.pdf.
2005 World Summit Outcome: www.un.org/summit2005/documents.html .
1 "A Glass At Least Half-Full" Kofi Annan, 19 September 2005. Wall Street Journal.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 "Although World Summit Outcome ‘disappointing,’ UN reform efforts must continue." 21 September 2005. United Nations.http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/ga10392.doc.htm.
5 "The United Nations" in Wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia. www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/united_nations. 23 September 2005.
6 "Reform at the UN". www.un.org/reform. 23 September 2005.
7Wedgwood, Ruth. "The Evident Virtures (and Vices) of the United Nations"
8 Ibid.
9 The Oil For Food program was established in 1997 to allow Iraq to sell its oil on the world market in order for it to obtain food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies that were inaccessible because of the trade sanctions imposed by the United States and other countries seeking to topple the Saddam Hussein regime. This UN program came under fire in late 2004 when it was revealed that the Iraqi leader may have personally benefited from this program and pocketed billions of dollars that were intended to purchase food for the Iraqi people. Further trouble for the UN stemmed from Kofi Annan’s son Kojo’s personal involvement with the intermediary companies.
10 Passed June 17th, 2005, although opposed by the Bush Administration and other officials.
11 "The UN reform Bandwagon" by William F. Jaspar, 11 July 2005. Posted on www.getusout.org/artman/publish/article_138.html. |
|
|
|
