Has the UN's Reform 2005 Failed - Coursework Example

UNITED NATIONS: IN FOCUS Introduction The United Nations has been established as the world’s response to the horrors and atrocities of World War II. It is a global effort instituted originally and primarily towards “protecting states from direct military aggression of other States.” (Byers, 2005, p 8)But more than fifty years have passed since United Nations establishment and the world has changed. The contemporary global society has rapidly undergone progress in science and technology which has paved the way for tremendous developments in almost all facets of human existence. Furthermore, our contemporary world is characterised by two important factors first of which is globalization which entails the rigid separation between the national and the international spheres at the economic technological, political, social and cultural levels (Durand 2005, p 61). And the other factor is the more prominent and actively role of civil society. However, as the world moves in leaps and bounds in science and technology, the world is starkly confronted and marked with the divide between the rich countries and the poor countries, by countries which have nuclear weapons and those which don’t have, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation infectious diseases of which the world might not be ready, HIV/AIDS, by transnational crimes and intrastate wars, In such a scenario, it is not astonishing that United Nations itself has to necessarily undergo reformation and re-evaluation in terms of how it is responding to contemporary situation. Since, the challenges of our times go beyond the narrowly conceived international security which served as an impetus for United Nations creation. POSITION In this paper, the researcher will try to address the question did United Nation’s reform fail in 2005? The researcher believes that in answering this question one has to acknowledge one’s responsibility as a global citizen. In light of this, the researcher holds that United Nation’s reforms on 2005 are a failure. This position is maintained even if some specks of possible agendas of reforms have been continuously advocated and integrated in policy decision making. But still, one can concretely see that all efforts geared towards reforming United Nation may seem to be nil if certain intrinsic relations with the hegemonies superpower is not modified. However, though, the position of this paper is that UN failed on its 2005 reforms, there is some glimpse of hope because it is recognised that “United Nations is highly adaptable and capable of making midcourse corrections, of championing new agendas, and of learning to employ new tools as the needs, values, and demands of the member States shifts.”(Luck 2005, p 412) And that the “task of reforming and renewing the United Nations is at the heart a political tasks as arduous as it is essential.” (Russett 1996, p 269) ARGUMENTS The following arguments provide for the support of the position of this paper. First, the opening of the United Nations Charter states that UN was created to “reaffirm faith to fundamental human rights and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” (HLP 2005, p 9) If we are going to look at the current condition of the global society we can see that “More than a billion people lack access to clean water, more than two billion have no access to adequate sanitation and more than three million die every year from water-related diseases. Fourteen million people, including six million children, die every year from hunger. There were 842 million undernourished people in 2000; 95 per cent lived in poor countries. Almost 30 million people in Africa now have HIV/AIDS. In the worst-affected States, middle-aged urban elites are heavily afflicted, eroding State capacity and decimating the economic activity of what should be a State’s most productive group. The increasing number of infected women and girls is threatening food and agricultural production. If trends are not reversed, some of these States face collapse under the combined weight of poverty and HIV/AIDS.” (HLP 2005 p 12) This situation is further aggravated by the widening gap between the “Global South “and the “Global North”. Under the globalization scheme wherein market barriers are removed so that goods and services can get across among and between countries with more with the idea that it will propel the economies of almost all the participating countries in this global liberalization of the world market. But unfortunately, this ideal of world market which is supposed to be seen as panacea for poverty has only served as the vehicle for the Global North, the developed affluent countries to force the countries in the Third World or on The Global South to open their national markets to the products of the first world, while the markets of the developed countries have been inaccessible to the Third World countries. Thus, globalization has perpetuated, widened and entrenched further the gap between the developed countries and the Third world. The point that I intend to raise here is where is the United Nations in the midst of all these sufferings and poverty that is experienced by more than half of the population of the world. We do recognize that “United Nations was never intended to be a utopian exercise.” (HLP 2005 p 4) but how about the goal of promoting social progress and better life. Where these all only rhetoric? Where is UN? In fact, “UN’s link to world financial or economic institutions looks vague in the eyes of world public opinion.” (Durand 2005, p 63) Thus, public opinion finds “no answer to its anxiety and frustrations about catastrophic humanitarian situations, about failures of peace-keeping operations or the spread of unemployment at the world level.” (Bertrand 1995, p 2) United Nations should be more actively involved in social and economic activities. Yes, we do affirm that United Nations cannot provide heaven on earth but then it should not sit still if hell’s fury has broken loose on earth. The incorporation of economic and social threats including poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation in one of the cluster is not enough to claim that something is being done. The reality of poverty, health inequity, HIV/AIDS, world- wide unemployment, brain drain of Third World countries, of force movement of people is something that cannot be addressed by rhetoric of Millennium Development Goal. Humanity sharing the same human condition of vulnerability should demand solidarity among member States of UN even if there is a “sheer diversity of the UN’s membership.” (Berdal 2005, p 2) Second, the US led War on Iraq has opened a gamut of issues that technically propelled the UN to a situation wherein it realistically wrestled with power. There is a unanimous agreement around the globe that the world is confronted with threats that need to be addressed in order to maintain global peace. And it is clear that “The central idea that underlies the panel’s assessment of threats is that none of them can be regarded as ‘standing alone’. Contemporary threats to international order, so the argument runs, know no boundaries and, consequently, reliance on ‘self protection’ is simply not a viable option, even for the strongest and most powerful state.” (Berdal 2005, p 18) But this recognition of threat that prompted United States in undertaking a pre-emptive attack against Iraq is in fact a very big threat to the global community considering that United States is the sole super power in the world today. This fact coupled with the idea that United States has undertaken the pre-emptive attack against the position of the United Nations and manifestly violating the founding principle of the charter of UN should make the world uneasy. Why uneasy if not petrified? The UN Charter’s founding principle holds that “force would only be used in self-defense against an actual attack or after a threat to the peace had been determined by the collective decision making.”(Franck 2003 p 609). However, if we look at the pre-emptive attack doctrine of Bush, which can be deduced from his public pronouncements, he has clearly stated that United States would not await a first strike of incalculable consequences but would use force first, and if necessary alone, against those who would commit acts no responsible government could fail to preempt. This act of defending and protecting the interests of the Americans is justifiable under the condition that United States is defending itself against an actual attack. And this is, in fact, the basis of UN. But then we look at what had happened in the US led War against Iraq it was not in self defense. There was no actual attack. It was simply and purely paranoia on the part of the administration of Bush, or an excuse to flex their muscle. This doctrine of pre emptive attack is made more grim by the by the statement of Bush that explicitly stated that US will push through with it ( the pre-emptive attack) even without the support of the international community or UN, "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the inter- national community," Mr. Bush said, "we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country . . . ."(National State Security 44 ¶ 3) This clearly shows that “the sole super power administration (Bush administration) is not in the least interested in rules, old or new, …it has no interests of subordinating its sole responsibility for protecting what it perceives to be its national security to the judgement of others” (Franck, 2003 p 616) This act defeats the very principle with which UN has been established. It mocks the very spirit with which 51 countries have come together to protect the world from the atrocities of war – attaining a genuine multilateral decision making within the international community. Although UN through HLP strongly denounces the doctrine of per-emptive war (as what the US did) it is not enough. They merely reprimanded United States. The world now knows that United States will continue to use its veto power in UN just to protect its own vested interests. And “US – led priorities not only displace but are also artificially separated from other issues of vital if not greater concern: poverty, infectious diseases, environmental challenges, and other sources of conflict within and among states” (Berdal 2005 p 3)And yet what UN has done was only admonished the United States. In fact in the same article HLP, it states that United States is vital in the global movement for peace itself, in achieving uniting peace. These seem to be ironic since they have turned their interests to Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iran. What really is the threat here? Who is the threat to whom? Furthermore, they have incorporated in the clusters items that seem to be specifically designed to suit the needs of United States and perhaps its allies. United Nations is supposed to be the international institution that protects the vulnerable but in the US Iraq War, UN has become the vulnerable because it fails to take upon itself that it has to decide on such a political matter. This is very significant since the “idea of an international organization empowered to enforce the protection of basic human rights… represents the hope of many vulnerable individuals and States.” (Russett 1996 p 266) Others are proposing a more extreme solution- exclusion of Unites States to the international arena which is simply impossible. But the thing is they should not just be admonish for who can stop US in doing what it wants if it hides in the cloak of protecting its interest. And it is really the ideals of UN that people from the Third World are hoping that UN can set the parameters even policies but then that is not what we have seen, “the United States no longer considers itself subordinated in any way to the treaty rules that lie at the heart of the United Nations Charter. An anomalous situation therefore faces the Organization, which cannot expel a veto-bearing scofflaw state against its will, but which, in those circumstances, is doomed to encounter great difficulty in carrying out the wishes of its other members.” (Franck 2003, p 617) In this case, the important question that plagues UN is how can a genuine multilateral decision-making be attained and implemented if initiative for peace and security stays in Washington and not in New York? Will UN function merely as the conscience of United States implying that it will act as the voice that can engage United States to “modulate its exercise of power and discipline its impulses?” (Weiss 2003, p 156) Third, United Nations continues to fail in addressing the problems that are tied up with the inherent diversity of UN membership. This diversity on its own point to the reality of the existence of different “historical experiences, economic realities, cultural influences, forms of government and perceptions of interests” (Berdal 2005a, p 2) among and between member States. These differences, in turn, accounts for a “genuine conflicts of interest and value among member States.” (Berdal 2005 b, p 9) Pluralism is intrinsic in an international community. As such, there is technically the need to persist in arriving at a genuine multilateral consensus that will be reflective of the principle that will necessitate the inclusion of “acting with the right intention and the prospect of doing more good than harm.” (Heinbecker 2005, p 16.) However, United States takes the “position of hegemonic power which believes that its leadership is indispensible to ensure the correct functioning of the organization and at the same time feel that the organization should serve its own interests.” (Bertrand 1995, p 3) And this position is made more apparent with the reality that “UN’s coercive capacity is always on loan, UN-led or UN-approved military operations take place only when Washington signs on.” (Weiss 2003, p 158) However, is UN looking at the real problem? Is the existence of diversity in the midst of an international pluralistic community the real problem? Or is it the unilateral interest of the hegemonic power which is accommodated by UN simply because United States knows UN cannot persist without its support? Does UN have the political will to break its dependence on United States? Personally, the role of United States in the international community is very confusing. It spearheads almost all international organization NATO, ASEAN, WTO-GATT and other similar international institutions. But it is perceptible, at the same time that United States will work and act only if they can pursue and protect their own vested interests. It seems then that when UN speaks of genuine conflicts of values and interest among member States because of diversity in membership it may be plausible that they are merely referring to the difference in opinion between United States and other member States. This reality is made pronounce by the US-led war on Iraq. Perhaps, one may say that this is a too simplistic analysis of the state of the UN vis-à-vis the conflicts of interest and values among member states. The above argument does not discount the reality of the conflicts that arise among sovereign member States. In fact, it is but natural. Since, these States have different historical experiences, culture, economic development, and kind of government it can be expected that each Member State will try to work out or support those programs that will benefit their people the most. As such, I think that it is a perpetual challenge within the structure of United Nations that it strives for a genuine multi-lateral decision making process. UN ought to accept that its paradigm is a pluralist paradigm for its very context is international community. Thus, these conflicts of interests should not be perceived as a cause of failure but rather should be appreciated as a challenge of growth. Thus, when these ‘conflicts’ are juxtaposed to the unilateral decision making made by the United States in the case of the US-led War on Iraq and the United Nations clearly incapacitated to stop United States from doing what it wants, then, the real problem appears. A bleaker picture for the world is made clear – US as the sole superpower “has no intention of subordinating its sole responsibility for protecting what it perceives [sic] to be its national security to the judgement of others ... Washington will keep its membership...to block by its veto any action by others thought to be inimical to American interests .” (Franck 2003, p 616, 617) With this, it can be claimed that United States “does not see itself as subordinated in any way to the treaty rules that lie at the heart of United Nations Charter.” (Franck 2003 p. 617) In this aspect, UN is a glaring failure. Can UN constrain US power? Fourth, another reason why UN reform on 2005 fail is because the internal structure of UN itself does not make room for authentic reforms. Although, the history of reforms in the UN are always geared towards making the organization more responsive to the challenges of the changing world and more reflective of UN membership. However, because of the presence of However, because of the presence of ‘era’s great powers—the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom, and China—now known as the Permanent 5 (P-5) with the right to veto decisions of substance.” (Weiss 2003 p 148) This is the reason why “substantive and substantial reform has proved to be virtually impossible. In fact, only three amendments have been made to the UN Charter in almost 60 years.” (Weiss 2003, p 147) Why does it become the reason? Members of the Permanent 5 (P5) of which United States is a member protect only their interests. This group has consistently blocked all efforts by other member States to convene conferences that will work out and discuss changes in the charter and organizational structures. Plus, they have been very vocal and they have “clearly communicated their intention to safeguard their veto rights.” (Weiss 2003 p 148) Bluntly put, these countries are protecting, safeguarding their own interests. So, how can UN move towards authentic changes that will make it more attune to the needs of the current times if there are powerful blocks that will hinder any real efforts for reform? This seems to be a deadlock. As long as this condition exists, people and countries alike will continue wondering whether UN is a real global international organization which aims to help countries attain a better quality life and protect humanity from the atrocities and horrors of war. I think that UN should really sole or removed this debacle because in public opinion UN is that is genuinely and truly concern with the plight of the vulnerated people from the Global South. Finally, the fifth reason why UN reform on 2005 failed is because it failed to address charges which claim that bribery exists in UN itself. A study conducted by Ilyana Kuzeimko and Eric Werker (2006) tried to look into the question whether there is a reality to the idea that a member State who has been given the opportunity in occupying a non-permanent seat in the Security Council do sell their votes. The authors have conducted an empirical study in order to find the answer to their query whether vote buying or selling of votes in UN happens. Data taken from both UN and US are utilized for the study. In their conclusion they claim that, ” Thus far, we have argued that nonpermanent members of the U.N. Security Council receive extra foreign aid from the United States and 924 journal of political economy the United Nations, especially during years in which the attention focused on the council is greatest. Our results suggest that council membership itself, and not simply some omitted variable, drives the aid increases. On average, the typical developing country serving on the council can anticipate an additional $16 million from the United States and $1 million from the United Nations. During important years, these numbers rise to $45 million from the United States and $8 million from the United Nations. Finally, the U.N. finding may actually be further evidence of U.S. influence: UNICEF, an organization over which the United States has historically had great control, seems to be driving the increase in U.N. aid.” (Kuziemko and Werker 2006 p 924) Reading this baffles my mind. Will I say that things like these happen in UN itself because the international community is, technically, the arena where money politics is more pronounced? That local problem of bribery of most countries in the Third World is but a confined and limited picture of money politics. And that perhaps the only difference between the two is that bribery in UN as it is happening in a global institution can be masked by the concept of foreign aid, while bribery happening within countries is always, almost driven by pure greed? I am speculating but the fact cannot lie for themselves. CONCLUSION Based on the arguments presented, this paper holds that UN reforms on 2005 failed. The recognition of the UN reform failure ushers in a new challenge to the global society. Various positions have been articulated. There are groups who are saying that reforms can still happen while there are those who are claiming that UN is already dead and that there is a need to create a new international institution that will help address the contemporary problems of the global society. In this regard, I believe that creating a new international institution without first solving the problems that caused UN to fail in undertaking a substantive and substantial reform is the same old wine inside a new wine holder or skin. The political will of the leadership of UN to be independent form United States plus political cooperation among states in helping UN gain autonomy from US must be undertaken. And then perhaps, EU can provide an alternative strength to the military power that United States is currently manifesting. Indeed, UN is not supposed to provide heaven on earth. But it should not let hell break loose on earth. REFERENCES “A more secured world: Our shared responsibility. Report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes”. United Nations 2004. Berdal, Mats. “The UN’s Unnecessary Crisis”, Survival, Autumn 2005, 47, 3, pp 7 – 32. __________. “Reconciling the irreconcilable?”, Behind the Headlines, Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, January 2005, p 3. Bertrand, Maurice. “The UN as an Organization. A Critique of Its Functioning.” EJIL, 6, 1995, p 1- 359. Byers, Michael. “New threats, old answers”. Behind the Headlines, Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, January 2005, p 8. Durand, Daniel. “The United Nations at the Heart of ‘Another World”, Development, 2005, 48(1), p 61-64. Franck, Thomas M. “What Happens Now? The United Nations after Iraq”. The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No 3, Jul 2005, pp. 607 – 620. Heinbecker, Paul. “The UN between heaven and hell.” Behind the Headlines, Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, January 2005, p 16. Luck, Edward. “How Not To Reform The United Nations”, Global Governance, 11, 2005, pp 407 – 414. Kuziemko, Ilyana and Werker, Eric. “ How Much Is A Seat on the Security Council Worth? Foreign Aid and Bribery at the United Nations”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 114, No 5, 2006, pp 905 – 931. Russett, Bruce. “Ten Balances of Weighing UN Reform Proposals”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. III, No 2 , Summer 1996, pp 259 – 269. “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America”, September 2002, p. 31, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf .Accessed on March 7, 2009. Weiss, Thomas G. “The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform”, The Washington Quarterly, 26, 4, Autumn 2003, pp 147 – 161. Read More