There seems to be a general conviction that the world has lost faith in the United Nations and its ability to solve international disputes in an impartial manner. The world body is suspected of practicing double standard to please the big powers.
Since its foundation in 1945, the UN has grown in both remit and size. The main concern of the founding members, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and later on France was for the UN to have a governing system that only caters for their own interests allowing them to control the world.
The UN’s main task remains keeping the peace, but its Security Council is often hobbled by internal squabbling, long-running debate about its membership and doubts about its very legitimacy. Contrary to what should have been done, the UN Charter restricted the authority of the General Assembly giving full power to the Security Council, which happened to be controlled by the five permanent members who have the veto power. What happened was that the veto power was later exploited for controlling the course of international politics and a means for the realizing big powers’ goals.
As a result of the political changes leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US is now the world’s only superpower. Soviet Union is now part of history. France’s role in world affairs has been neutralized; it is no longer an influential contributor to the international decision making process. The US also took advantage of the critical transformation process China has undergone. As for Britain, this country is no longer a problem; it has become the camp follower of Washington thanks to the policies adopted by its leadership after Margaret Thatcher came to power. The government of Tony Blair is faithfully following this line.
These changes that saw the emergence of one dominant power has plunged the world into chaos resulting in the mushrooming of terrorist organizations and more than one country losing its sovereignty as a result of military invasion or the imposition of economic sanctions.
With a view to reforming the UN, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has suggested a series of proposals. Annan told a 16-member panel, composed mainly of former government ministers and heads of government, to suggest institutional and cultural changes, including changing the structure of the Security Council. The council is no longer representative of the world; of its 15 seats, five are permanent and veto wielding and the other ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have no veto. The suggestion opened the appetite of a number of countries, Germany, Japan, Egypt, India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa, to seek a permanent seat at the Security Council.
Annan however fears that the permanent members may seek to block his proposals, especially the US. The UN’s relationship with America, its co-founder and main bank roller, has long been troubled.
Regardless of whether the proposals were heeded or not, I think the UN would never have the power and authority to enforce and protect world peace and security and seek to solve disputes in an impartial manner unless serious amendments are introduced to its charter taking the following into account:
• The General Assembly resolutions should be binding;
• The Security Council’s role should be the follow-up of the implementation of General Assembly resolutions and take necessary measures to ensure this;
• General Assembly resolutions to be adopted by absolute majority;
• Abolishing the veto power and broadening the Security Council membership including permanent members;
• The secretary-general should have the authority to monitor the implementation of the UN Charter and publicly announce any violations including nonpayment of financial contributions in the UN budget; and
• The secretary-general to be elected by the General Assembly and not by the Security Council. All other leading UN posts to be filled by election.
If such changes were introduced the UN would become a body capable of facing the challenges posed by the big powers. Otherwise, it will remain a tool in the hands of the big powers.
