The year 1920 saw the creation of the League of Nations whose covenant promoted collective security and the peaceful settlement of disputes through arbitration while threatening countries that fail to abide by the covenant with economic sanctions. The covenant was to a large extent copied from the Treaty of Versailles, itself intended to organize world affairs after World War I by preventing armed conflicts and promoting international cooperation.
One of the major shortcomings of the League of Nations was its failure to serve as a universal body incorporating all countries of the world. Its failures in several areas including the economic and political, led to World War II.
Before the end of the war the big powers sought to create another international body to protect the world from wars, and were keen this time to avoid the shortcomings that weakened and eventually led to the demise of the League of Nations. The United Nations was born and its Charter came into effect on Oct. 24,1945. Its first General Assembly opened in London on Jan. 10, 1946.
Today, the people of the world seem to have lost faith in the international organization and its fledging bodies. The feeling has intensified after the United States emerged as the sole superpower thus heightening fears the world may plunge into yet another regional or universal conflict seriously threatening international peace and stability. It is from here that calls for reforming the world body intensified, especially following the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq without the consent of the Security Council.
It is true the UN Charter sought to avoid many of the mistakes of the League of Nations but the charter resulted in even more serious mistakes. Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: Of its 15 seats, five are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) and ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have no veto. The council’s composition is a throwback to the world order immediately after World War II with no changes introduced ever since, which effectively means the entire world has its destiny determined by the whims and desires of the big powers.
Under instructions from big powers Secretary-General Kofi Annan was asked to push ahead with an agenda for UN reform and appointed a high-level panel to submit recommendations on the issue.
Instead of assessing the threats facing the world and combining policy and institutional changes to deal effectively with global threats including continued poverty and environmental degradation, terrorism, civil war, genocide, conflicts between states, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, organized crime, HIV/AIDS and a host of other threats, the picture drawn by the panel for a reformed UN is unfortunately very disappointing.
The 100 plus proposals formulated by the panel for dealing with the areas identified as being the greatest threats to worldwide security in the 21st century, called for increasing the Security Council membership from 15 to 24, giving six countries permanent seats but without a veto.
The panel said countries must ensure the protection of their own people and for any military intervention to be proportionate to the size of the threat. The call for providing the Security Council with the means for rapid and active intervention in member countries’ internal affairs was warmly welcomed by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who said the suggestion would facilitate the use of force against what Britain views as dictatorial regimes.
This is an open invitation for others to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and a serious breach of international law and would only lead to further consolidating the big powers’ control over the world. It must be said that the organization is in crisis because for nearly 60 years the veto system has proved to be the main obstacle to any reform. What is important is not how many members should join the council but whether impartiality, integrity and honest dealing is observed in the implementation of the resolutions.
Reforming the UN would only be possible if the veto and permanent membership are abolished and the General Assembly given full authority. Any reforms should reflect the world community’s desire for peace and for peaceful means to be used to solve disputes instead of using force to achieve personal interests under the pretext of protecting human rights or toppling a government that oppresses its people.
