Picking up the pieces

Sep 12th 2005
From The Economist Global Agenda

World leaders are gathering in New York for a make-or-break summit on reforming the scandal-hit United Nations. But on the eve of the summit, many issues remain unresolved. What future awaits the world body if agreement cannot be reached?

IT HAS been billed as the biggest gathering of world leaders ever: a five-year review of the Millennium Summit that set ambitious development goals, and a chance to modernise the United Nations. But in the run-up to this week’s UN summit in New York, a feeling of damage-control hangs in the air. The beleaguered organisation is wincing from a body blow. In a devastating report last week, the independent committee of inquiry into the UN-administered oil-for-food programme in Iraq castigated virtually every aspect of the world body, including its powerful Security Council. The report painted a grim picture of corruption both inside and outside the UN system, with evidence of bribes, kickbacks, smuggling and other illicit deals going on throughout the vast programme.

Given the scale of the oil-for-food operation and the involvement of so many arms of the UN, the investigating committee believes that the failings it has found are symptomatic of “systemic problems” throughout the organisation. Its inescapable conclusion is that the UN needs thoroughgoing reform—and urgently. The committee’s members are not the first to reach that conclusion. The grandly named High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change submitted suggestions to Kofi Annan, the UN’s secretary-general, last December, and these formed the basis of an “outcome document” that diplomats are hoping to present to their national leaders at this week’s summit, which begins on Tuesday September 13th. But a number of issues remain contentious.

The wrangling between member states has been furious, with the United States pitched against a group of developing countries, including Cuba, Pakistan and Egypt. On his arrival at the UN’s New York secretariat last month, John Bolton, America’s assertive new ambassador to the body, threw the negotiations into further crisis by insisting on hundreds of last-minute changes to the draft document. Many of these were purely stylistic or anodyne, though some tore into the delicately balanced “grand bargain” between rich and poor countries that the UN had taken such pains to erect.

As of Monday, numerous issues had yet to be resolved. Among the most important were:

• Use of force and collective security

Under the UN Charter, the use of force is permitted only in self-defence or when authorised by the Security Council. The Americans, after failing to get council approval for their strike against Iraq in 2003, argued that the right of self-defence should be extended to include preventive strikes against latent or non-imminent threats.

The high-level panel agreed that there were situations where force should be used to prevent a threat becoming imminent. But it argued that such decisions should be made collectively by the Security Council on the basis of five criteria: the seriousness of the threat; if the primary purpose was to avert the threat; if every non-military option had been explored; if the scale of the proposed military action was the minimum required; and if there was a reasonable chance of the action being successful.

These criteria are now being attacked from all sides. The Americans believe that some of them are too restrictive; some developing countries are trying to insert a clause rejecting “unilateralism”.

• Humanitarian intervention

The Charter prohibits intervention “in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of any state”. But the panel argued that the principle of non-intervention could no longer be used to shield genocidal acts and other atrocities. The UN should assume a “responsibility to protect” civilian populations when governments are “unable or unwilling” to do so. Military action should be authorised by the Security Council as a last resort.

All this has been warmly endorsed by Mr Annan. The United States is wary of anything smacking of a legal commitment, and has succeeded in expunging the word “obligation” from the draft text, offering a weaker formulation: “we are prepared to take” action. Agreement has come closer on this, but India, always sensitive on issues of sovereignty, and in a huff about not getting a Security Council seat (see below), has been difficult and could be a spoiler.

• The Security Council

The council’s membership has become increasingly anachronistic and unrepresentative. But apart from the addition of four non-permanent members in 1963, bringing total membership to 15, it has eluded all reform. This is partly because of the rivalries of nations competing for seats and partly because of the blocking power of the five permanent, veto-wielding members: America, Russia, China, France and Britain. India, Brazil, Japan and Germany formed an alliance, dubbed the G4, to press jointly for permanent seats. But their hopes dimmed at the end of July when they failed to get the backing of the 53-member African Union, vital for winning the two-thirds majority vote in the General Assembly required for a Charter amendment. All plans for Security Council reform are now in tatters and may remain so. The draft document, while agreeing that the council should be made more representative, fails to say how.

• Development

Developing countries, supported by members of the European Union and some others in the rich world, want wealthy countries to commit to giving 0.7% of their GDP per year in development aid. The Americans, while they have increased their (unusually low) levels of foreign assistance under George Bush, think it is more important that aid recipients reform themselves, tackle corruption and prepare for investment.

Compromise language has emerged: America will recognise that some countries are committed to the 0.7% goal, while the others will reaffirm the need for action by aid recipients.
Development wonks fear that this is nothing new, and that crucial momentum for “eradicating extreme poverty”, begun with the Millennium Summit in 2000, will be lost.

• Terrorism

Attempts to find an acceptable definition of terrorism have hitherto foundered on the insistence by Islamic countries that it exclude the “armed struggle for liberation and self-determination”.
The current draft includes strong language that “deliberate and unlawful targeting and killing cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance…Any such action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm…to intimidate a population or to compel a government…cannot be justified on any grounds.” But developing countries are still pushing a declaration that the fight against terrorism should not be used as an excuse to crush “the legitimate right of peoples under foreign occupation to struggle for their independence”.

• Peacebuilding Commission

The high-level panel proposed a Peacebuilding Commission to help prevent post-conflict nations from relapsing into violence. But a row has broken out over its control. The Americans and Europeans want it to be set up under the auspices of the Security Council, with the council’s five permanent members assigned automatic membership of the new body. Developing countries, which think the council—especially the permanent five—already has too much power, want the Peacebuilding Commission to come under the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), where their representation is stronger. Joint management by the Security Council and ECOSOC is a possible compromise.

• Human Rights Council

The panel's recommendation that the UN’s discredited 53-member Commission on Human Rights be replaced by a smaller, more powerful Human Rights Council has received widespread support. But it is being fiercely opposed by those who have most to fear. Zimbabwe, China and Cuba are all current members. Although the principle of a new body could survive, its set-up may not be very different from the existing one if the opponents of change get their way. The Americans want the new council's membership to be limited to 30 and to exclude any state subject to UN sanctions or investigations into human-rights violations. Pakistan and Egypt are leading a move to keep it as big, and unwieldy, as it currently is, with a two-thirds vote required for membership.

• Non-proliferation

This is the part that has generated some of the fiercest disputes of all. The Americans want greater emphasis on arms control. They believe the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes “the pre-eminent threat to peace and security”. The developing world wants the West to do much more about disarmament. There is also disagreement about fighting traffic in small arms, which are the biggest killers in developing countries. Almost every word of this section is still being wrangled over.

Is Annan to go or to stay?

Despite calls for Mr Annan's resignation from some in America’s Congress, neither George Bush nor Mr Bolton is calling for him to step down over past UN incompetence or venality. For the secretary-general, this week’s summit will provide a rare opportunity to achieve real change—“and if we fail, I don't know when the opportunity will come again,” he has said. The survival of the UN is not at stake; the organisation will continue to chug along whatever happens. But its credibility is at stake. And without credibility, this flawed but hugely important body will not be able to do much good in the world.

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