On June 15, 2005, Bhaskar Menon and Steven Schlesinger addressed the Center for U.N. Reform Education. Mr. Menon is former U.N. staff member and the Editor of UNdiplomatic Times. Dr. Schlesinger is Director of the World Policy Institute at New School University in New York City. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks.
The intensity of efforts to reform the United Nations this year surpasses anything the world has seen since its inception. Yesterday, U.S. Institute of Peace’s released the report of a bi-partisan Congressional Task Force co-chaired by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, American Interests and U.N. Reform. What does the Report say about U.S. position on U.N. reforms? What will happen after the Heads of States meet this September? Will the U.N. be reformed or collapse over night? There is not much time allotted for member states to deliberate the reform proposals. Is the U.N. being set up for a big let-down or pushed towards transformation?
STEVEN SCHLESINGER
In September if none of the proposed reforms pass, United Nations will still survive. The endurance of this institution is one of the great success stories. It has helped create conflict resolutions programs in nations from El Salvador to Cambodia to Angola. However, even if you pass all the reforms, it doesn’t mean the Security Council will suddenly do something to stop the genocide in Darfur. The reform proposals don’t get to the root of the problem which is United Nations is made of member states and those member states act on political will.
The whole reform movement grew out of one single action: the U.S. unilateral invasion of Iraq. Frightened that the U.N. might lose its relevance Kofi Annan created the High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change to examine how the U.N. could renew itself. This tells how significant U.S. influence is in this organization, which is why Annan worked so hard to reach out to them. It is not a coincidence that Annan’s report entitled In Larger Freedom repeats “freedom” 38 times as Bush repeated it 27 times in his inaugural speech. Another example that Annan is reaching out to Americans is that he hired Mark Malloch Brown- the former head of United Nations Development Program- to re-organize the Secretariat, and Brown fired many of Annan’s close friends. The U.S. State Department doesn’t feel bound by September, and does not see it as a hard and fast deadline for U.N. Reform. John Bolton’s appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. calls any reform efforts into question. Appointing someone so unsupportive of the U.N. might be Bush’s revenge for Annan calling the war in Iraq illegal.
Two encouraging reform ideas stand out in Congressional Commission’s Report: an office to alert the General Assembly about genocidal actions, and a standby rapid deployment force on a voluntary basis. The Bush Administration will be happy with efforts to redefine terrorism but will push for a very broad definition. There is also increasing support for successful Peacekeeping Operations, a recent New Republic piece says violence has diminished significantly due to the U.N.’s Peacekeeping missions. The Bush administration will support the creation of a Human Rights Council, but smaller states will oppose it because it will be more difficult for them to get on it. There is a general support for a Democracy Fund but on foreign aid, it is doubtful that the Administration will increase it to 0.7 percent as proposed by the Secretary-General. U.S. spending on foreign aid is less than 1 percent of its gross national income, one of the lowest proportions in the developed world, although the dollar amount is the highest with approximately $19 billion. Both smaller states and permanent members do not want a strong Secretariat, which will affect Management Reforms. The U.S. will shoot down any guidelines for preemptive action because they want to maintain their unilateral stance. Smaller states will oppose the proposed reforms on “Responsibility to Protect” because they view it as bigger the states excuse for intervening in their business.
BHASKAR MENON
Reform of the United Nations must begin with an assessment of its performance. None of the reports issued so far looks at the U.N. performance record. In some areas, the U.N. has been very successful. It has been a tremendous success in the normative area, in gathering and analyzing statistics, and in getting governments to focus on emerging issues and formulating action plans. The Organization has codified and created more international law in six decades than was done in all of history. It has brought into focus such major themes as the protection of the global environment.
In other areas, the U.N. has not been successful. It has not maintained international peace and security. Since the end of World War II, about 100 million people have been killed in armed conflicts. The Security Council did not function as planned. Its permanent members have been part of the problem, not the solution. U.N. peacekeeping activities have spent some $36 billion over the last six decades, but they have succeeded only when there was prior agreement to stop conflict. In the area of economic and social development far more has been spent than on peacekeeping with meager results.
A major shortcoming of the United Nations is that it does not put security, economic and social issues into the same analytical framework. Its reports render a version of reality somewhat like that of blind men groping an elephant. Without an accurate picture of interdependent issues it has been very difficult to take strategic action.
The reform proposals that have been made so far are mainly structural and procedural, with no explanation of how they are expected to improve the world situation. The expansion of the Security Council is one example. The proposal to dramatically ramp up aid is another. Development is not about money. It requires the proper mindset, priorities, and capacity for cooperation within a country. Without that, aid will merely disconnect the leadership of poor countries from their people.
Mr. Annan's initiative has been very successful in reaching out to the civil society globally. The new information and communications technologies allow the U.N. to be the hub of multiple global networks. In fact, the new technologies spell the end of giant bureaucracies, for their work can be far more efficiently done by networks. A United Nations for the 21st century could be re-conceptualized as the interactive center of global networks linking government policy makers, civil society and the corporate sector.