Have The UN's Prerogatives Been Turned Over To The U.S.?

Mona Makram Obeid     Al-Hayat     2003/10/15

The UN was lately subject to sharp criticism; it has been accused of failing to preserve international peace. The criticism seemed even harsher when the UN failed to block the American-British decision to launch war against Iraq, a decision that certain political circles viewed as spelling the end of the international organization. In this light, numerous questions have been raised about the role and efficiency of the UN, and the ways to overcome its crisis.

Some observers maintain that the UN is collapsing following the American invasion of Iraq, because international relations are no longer governed by international law. This situation stems from the contradiction between the UN being an international organization based on political plurality, and the existing situation whereby only one country controls the world's political, military and economic issues. Ever since Bush came to power, the U.S. has held high the slogan of "preemptive war" instead of "the power of the right and legitimacy." When the war was waged, the international community opposed it, and the UN turned silent. The international organization thus fell into the hands of the U.S., turning over all its prerogatives to that country.

Other people don't agree with this view, arguing that the UN's role cannot end given that all the other states have interests in the organization. Furthermore, under the current circumstances, there is no other alternative. They also argue that even the U.S. doesn't want to see it disappear, and this for several reasons, mainly the difficulties it has encountered when launching its war and the cover it needs that could justify its war on Iraq. Moreover, the reconstruction of Iraq cannot be carried out by the U.S. alone, as it needs the rest of the international community which has conditioned its support on having a UN sponsorship. The developing countries cannot afford to call for the end of the UN, because it remains their last hope of having a platform where they can express their problems, ambitions and interests. Arab and Islamic countries also need the UN in a bid to have the Security Council resolutions regarding Israel and Iraq implemented.

The truth is that the UN's crisis is a result of Washington's using the organization for its own interests, while the wealthy and developed countries are not viewing it as the right tribune to settle international disagreements. Although the UN is playing a role in several internal issues, under the banner of fighting terror and protecting human rights, it is not allowed to intervene in certain specific issues. It is necessary to reform the UN for it to overcome the crisis. But how should this be carried out? Although such calls have been made ever since its creation, it has become a priority ever since the end of the Cold War, due to the important repercussions this had, politically, economically and socially.

Reforming the UN requires a reassessment of the philosophical concepts of the international organization in addition to the mechanisms used to achieve its goals. The reforms could include:

1-     Redrafting the UN Charter, which has remained unchanged for the past 50 years despite the momentous changes that occurred to the field of international relations. In this regard, clause 109 even clearly stipulates the need to revise it regularly.

2-     The need to revise the organizational structure of the UN as following:

a-      The need to cancel certain bodies of the UN, because their mission has been accomplished - for instance, the Trusteeship Council.

b-     Restructuring the Security Council: the number of the council's seats is now 15, while the membership of the UN has reached 184 countries. Most member-states have insisted that it would only be fair, logical and democratic to expand the membership of the Security Council, as it would expand the circle of decisions-makers, therefore positively reflecting on the Council's credibility and efficiency of its decisions.

c-      Balancing the bodies' authorities in the UN, especially the General Assembly, the Security Council and the International Court.

d-     Developing the UN administration body and reviewing the establishment of the secondary bodies in addition to the development of the General Secretariat administrative body.

e-       Widening the UN Secretary General's prerogatives because his role is vital and should not only concern the administrative and organizational aspects, but should extend to an efficient political role.

3-     The need for a new system to finance the UN activities through the plurality of the sources and the obligatory contributions of the member-states.

4-     Making it more difficult to use the veto, and allow all members of the Security Council to use it.

There is no doubt that the UN is going through a crisis, but it would be wrong to say that the crisis started on September 11, as it really started with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the end of the Cold War, because it was at that time that the world shifted from a bipolar to a unipolar system.

The real crisis started when European countries decided to attack Belgrade without a UN resolution. From that time on, there was nothing holding back the West from meddling in the internal affairs of other states, which forced the UN to cave in to the arrogance of the Bush administration, instead of putting forth its best weapon: ethics. Two conditions are needed to settle this crisis: an American president who believes in the plurality or the rise of a new great power that could equal the existing one. So far, one could say that the UN's role will remain marginalized as long as there isn't an international group that believes in joint action.

The question is: why wasn't there an international conference to discuss these issues? After Napoleon's war, the Vienna conference was held to reassess the state of international relations. After World War I, the Versailles conference was held, and after World War II, there was the San Francisco conference, which goal was to restructure international relations. But when the Cold War ended, no such conference was held. Therefore, should we consider the September 11 attacks as an opportunity to consider holding a conference to discuss at least the reforms?

*Ms. Obeid is a former deputy in the Egyptian parliament and a professor of political sciences at the American University.