A better UN, for a safer world

Mar 21st 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

The United Nations’ secretary-general, Kofi Annan, has proposed the most sweeping reforms of the body since its founding in 1945. If approved, these would answer many of the strongest criticisms of the UN and should help rebuild its damaged credibility

IF THERE is one thing on which both critics and supporters of the United Nations agree—especially since the enormous row over the Iraq war—it is that the world body is in need of reform. America and its allies were exasperated at the UN’s failure to agree action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Opponents of the war were equally angry at the UN’s failure to stop America from launching it. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there was the revolting spectacle of Britain and France sucking up to Lansana Conté, the tinpot dictator of tiny Guinea, because the UN’s rules had given him one of the Security Council’s rotating seats. Earlier, there was the equally stomach-churning sight of the tyrannical Libyan regime getting a turn at chairing the UN’s Commission on Human Rights. Then there was the gross embezzlement that has been uncovered in the UN’s $70 billion oil-for-food programme in Iraq—not to mention the UN’s prolonged inaction while the mass slaughter has continued in Sudan’s Darfur region.

Fearing that the UN was sliding into irrelevance, Kofi Annan, its secretary-general, set up an international panel, mainly of former heads of government and ministers, which late last year suggested sweeping reforms. On Monday March 21st, Mr Annan presented his recommendations for change, based on the panel’s conclusions, to a gathering of the UN’s 191-member General Assembly. He is calling for an expansion of the Security Council, so that it better reflects the global realities of today—though he did not specify how the council’s membership and veto rules should be changed. The Commission on Human Rights would, he proposes, be replaced by a smaller human-rights council, on which it would be harder for tyrants to get seats. To avoid repeats of past stalemates, the UN would agree a definition of “terrorism”, which would be incorporated in a new anti-terror treaty. It would also adopt clearer principles on when military force is justified.

Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: five of its 15 seats are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France), while the remaining 186 countries have to take turns occupying the remaining ten seats, and have no veto. Japan and Germany, the second- and third-biggest contributors to the UN budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats. So do India, the world’s second most populous country, and Brazil, Latin America’s biggest. Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa all argue that Africa merits two permanent seats—and each thinks it deserves one of them. However, each of the leading aspirants to a permanent seat has its opponents (Pakistan opposes India, Mexico opposes Brazil, etc), so years of arguing over reforms to the council’s membership have got nowhere.

Mr Annan’s panel of experts suggested two alternatives, both involving an expanded council of 24 members. The first option would give permanent seats, but no veto, to six countries (none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two of the three African giants) while creating three extra rotating seats. Under the second option there would be no new permanent members but a new middle tier would be created, whose members would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, unlike the current, two-year rotating seats. Mr Annan has urged UN members to adopt either of these options, or failing that something similar.

As for the smaller council that Mr Annan wants to see replace the 53-member Commission on Human Rights, its members would have to be approved by a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. In an ideal world, membership of this and other important UN bodies would be restricted to democracies. This is far more practicable now than when the UN was founded, since most populous countries are nowadays, to some degree, democratic. However, the one that sticks out like a sore thumb is China—and kicking it out of the UN’s main bodies is unthinkable.

Terrorists to some, freedom fighters to others

A commonly agreed definition of terrorism would make it easier for the UN to agree joint action to curb it. Mr Annan’s panel achieved unanimity on such a definition: any act intended “to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians”. But some Arab UN members, with Palestine in mind, may still demand exemptions for those resisting foreign occupation. America and others might worry that too sweeping a definition risked labelling as terrorism the bombing of military targets hidden in civilian neighbourhoods, as in Iraq.

The Bush administration would like to see the UN Charter tweaked to let countries launch preventive strikes without the Security Council’s permission, even where no attack seems imminent (eg, where a terrorist group is about to acquire nuclear know-how but is not yet able to make a bomb). But Mr Annan and his panel have rejected this idea. Instead, they say the Security Council should agree clearer rules on when it should authorise military action against such “latent” threats. Mr Annan has also called on the UN to embrace the principle that member countries have a “responsibility to protect” civilians suffering atrocities when their own government is failing to act. This has UN-watchers excited, as it would mean moving away from one of the organisation's founding principles, respect for national sovereignty.

These are but a few in the long list of big changes that Mr Annan pressed the UN to adopt on Monday. The aim is for the General Assembly to hold a special summit in September to approve the reform package. A 23-country opinion survey commissioned by the BBC, published on Monday, suggests widespread public support for an overhaul of the UN along the lines Mr Annan is proposing. In every participating country except Russia, a majority supported the expansion of the Security Council. In most countries (even including America), a majority backed making the UN “significantly” more powerful.

Even so, it will be tough to get the two-thirds majority among member countries that Mr Annan’s reforms will need. Even those that ought to command unanimity, such as a drastic shake-out of bureaucracy and corruption in UN bodies, are likely to run up against some governments’ vested interests at some stage. The final report on the oil-for-food scandal, due soon, may so damage Mr Annan and some senior colleagues that the credibility of his reform package is damaged. Now, amid unprecedented consensus about the UN’s shortcomings, the chances of reforming it should be strongest. But it could all too easily descend into the sort of futile squabbling for which the General Assembly has become infamous.

Copyright © 2005 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.