RIYADH, 22 March 2004 — There have been numerous demands for reform of the political, economic and judicial systems in the Arab countries. Serious concerns have also been voiced about the ineffectiveness of regional organizations such as the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and the Organization of the Unity of African Nations. Other demands for reform were directed to the European Union, NATO and G-8 summit.

These demands reveal the tension and anxiety among the international community in the New World Order. Discussions have been particularly intensive since the US invasion of Iraq assisted by the “coalition of the willing”.

The European Union is growing to 25 states from 15. However member states understand that more extensive regulations are needed to combat terrorism and unilateralism to protect European security. The EU has been studying the formation of a military intervention force, separate from NATO, that would be necessary to protect its members’ interests. Member states have also been holding discussions to reach agreement on a European constitution. The EU is also studying a “solidarity clause” that asserts EU states’ assistance to each other in response to new threats of terror.

As for Arab countries, most have acknowledged the need to initiate domestic reform programs before they are imposed on them. They have been encouraging open dialogue forums to debate issues of citizens’ concerns and make recommendations to decision makers. The Arab League is also conducting a lively debate for modification and re-examination of its charter to transform it into an instrument able to enforce its decisions and defend its member states. Arabs understand the need for change in view of the increasing pressures from the United States, which are threatening their sovereignty.

Meanwhile, NATO, — whose essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members — has invited seven Eastern European states to become members. These states are Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Originally, the main purpose of NATO was to defend its members in case of an armed attack on any of its member in Europe or North America by the Soviet Union.

Today some regard NATO as redundant after the demise of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. The decision to keep NATO functioning and to enlarge its membership was received with skepticism among the developing countries. The alliance claims that there are other risks and uncertainties facing its members, such as ethnic conflicts, abuse of human rights, political instability, economic fragility, terrorism and the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

Russia is reasserting itself militarily by improving its long-range missiles and military machinery. President Putin’s success, in last week’s election, was based on his promise to bring back the glory of the past. Meanwhile, China has introduced some democratic policies to improve its image internationally and maintain its economic prosperity. China is in disagreement with America over its support of Taiwan. Japan and Germany have decided to increase their military budgets to strengthen their military capabilities. North Korea is continuing its nuclear program.

Given all these changes, it does not take an expert to see how urgent the need for a structural change in the United Nations is.

The UN has failed the world, and its mission has been taken over by the United States because the UN did not have the necessary tools to enforce its resolutions.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the majority of people worldwide believe that the United States uses its military power to control the world economy. The assumption is that the United States is imposing freedom and democracy and fighting terror with the support of some allies and the cash of oil producing countries — ironically, in this it resembles nothing so much as the Soviet Union.

According to National Security Council policy 68, stated by Paul Nitze, “the fundamental design of the Kremlin is complete subversion or forcible destruction of the machinery of the government and structure of society in every part of the world not subservient to the Kremlin...The purpose is to eliminate freedom.”

There is not much change between now and then. UN Resolution 1441 on which the US based its pre-emptive strike on Iraq in effect stated “...disarm or you will face consequences...”

The problem is that Iraq had no WMD to disarm itself of, and the US now faces one of the worst credibility crises in its history.

The United Nations main problem lies with the Security Council. Since its establishment no major improvement has been suggested. Times have changed since the UN member states joined the organization; so has the world order that surrounded it. It is the powers given to the five permanent members of the Security Council that have landed the organization in the mess it is in. Unless the Security Council is expanded, it will never again be a functional apparatus to preserve world peace and security.

If the UN does not represent the major powers that either control or stimulate the world economic system, it will continue to fail a lot of countries and a lot of people. Countries such Germany and Japan should be included in the Security Council. India, representing a giant workforce of technocrats and labor, should be considered too. Saudi Arabia, a member of the IMF, has 60 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and massive gas reserves. It is an important and influential Islamic country. It too could find a place there.

Unless the United Nations can be seen by the majority of people around the world as representing their interests, rather than the vested interests of a few members and their allies, they will not trust it, and that in the long run will render it unable to function anywhere. Public opinion must be the guiding principle for change.

— Dr. Mariam Al-Oraifi is a Saudi academic. She is based in Riyadh.