When we characterize the changes that the United Nations needs to undergo as “reforms,” we do the organization an injustice: We measure it by its widely publicized shortcomings rather than its far less heralded achievements.
It was the 1933 defection of Germany and Japan from the League of Nations followed in 1937 by Italy that turned what had been a truly promising gathering of over 60 countries into a doomed talking shop whose final death was heralded by the opening shots of World War II. The victorious allied powers may have imagined that they could dominate its replacement the United Nations but the Cold War had the beneficial effect of robbing both the Western and Communist power blocs of overwhelming influence. While there were long periods when the UN seemed a place where rival states merely set out their competing worldviews, it is a mistake to overlook the fact that the organization provided a unique forum. There may not have been a lot of substantive negotiation going on, but the table was always there. In time, the UN corridors became places where national delegations quietly did business with each other away from the spotlight of public sessions.
Besides the important International Court of Justice in The Hague, there are 14 major UN agencies including the nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UNICEF for children’s welfare, UNDP for development program, UNHCR for refugees, the World Food Program and UNESCO dealing with education, science and culture. At various times some of these organizations have been embroiled in scandal over corruption or mismanagement. Yet the amount of good they have done in all the above areas has all too often been discounted.
What is maybe most remarkable is that officials drawn from the 191 member nations have worked together so successfully for so long. Large organizations within a single country are sometimes prone to inefficiency and poor management, yet the various UN bodies, staffed by people from very different backgrounds and cultures have, time and again, shown that they can dedicate themselves to a common purpose and achieve much.
Therefore rather than looking upon the program outlined this week by Secretary-General Kofi Annan as one of “reform”, it is surely wiser to see it as comprising changes whose time has come. The constitution of the Security Council is only one of the most obvious. The inclusion of the rising economic power of India and the established commercial presence of Japan makes absolute sense. The review of how UN agencies go about their work and how they can be made more accountable for the money they receive is also timely and prudent. The scandal of the Iraqi oil-for-food program has shaken the UN Secretariat and it is entirely right that the opportunity should now be seized to tighten procedures to make such corruption a great deal harder. Yet despite these failings, the Annan proposals are in reality building upon six decades of remarkable survival and success by a world organization whose existence is invaluable.
