The Hindu : Opinion / Editorials : REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 09, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Editorials

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF the panel mandated to propose reforms for making the United Nations a more effective instrument of collective security might not satisfy either the countries that fret at restraints imposed by international norms or those that seek a greater role in global decision-making. However, the high-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change constituted by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2003 has submitted a comprehensive report that can form the basis for a vibrant debate. The report is significant because it addresses the doctrinal controversies and institutional shortcomings that have impaired efforts to resolve conflicts. Given the context in which the international community is trying to cope with the invasion of Iraq by the United States, the panel's emphatic rejection of the doctrine of preventive war is particularly welcome. While distinguishing a preventive war, where a state claims the right of self-defence against a non-imminent threat, from a pre-emptive war against a proximate threat, the panel observes that there will always be time to follow the U.N. route in cases that fall under the first category. It also evolves a doctrine to validate international intervention in the internal affairs of a country where state systems have collapsed or where genocide, ethnic cleansing or other gross abuses of human rights are perpetrated. According to this doctrine, the international community has a collective responsibility to intervene and protect victims when sovereign governments are either powerless or unwilling to act because such man-made catastrophes can be a threat to global peace and security.

The panel pertinently observes that threats today to the stability of the international order emanate from a wider variety of sources than the inter-state conflicts that the U.N. system was established primarily to resolve. The other sources of threat identified in the report are poverty, infectious disease, and environmental degradation; conflicts within countries; weapons of mass destruction; terrorism; and transnational organised crime. While recognising that several mechanisms to deal with these threats have evolved outside the ambit of the U.N., the panel points to the need for more effective coordination among all agencies that take cognisance of particular problems. Several institutional reforms, including the establishment of an efficient information-gathering apparatus, are suggested. It is also recommended that the U.N. should proactively interact with regional organisations as well as civil society institutions within member countries. The panel tries to deflect criticism that its recommendations will cause more external interference in the internal affairs of individual countries by stressing that collective efforts should be oriented towards strengthening a state's capabilities. In this context, it is disappointing that the role played by capital market speculators, whose transnational operations often have a devastating impact on developing countries, is not discussed.

The report unequivocally declares that peace enforcement, peace-keeping and peace-building operations should not be undertaken without a U.N. mandate. Since operations of this nature are often carried out by regional formations or ad hoc alliances, the panel suggests ways by which relevant departments of the U.N. Secretariat can offer effective coordination. It recommends that States possessing the capability should keep readily available the military contingents and logistical capacity that can be swiftly deployed for these operations. Given this concept of a broad-based format for collective security, the panel's proposals for the reconfiguration of the Security Council might appear less iniquitous. Those countries that can be inducted into the second tier of permanent members without the veto power will have a major say in global security affairs if they play a role commensurate with their capabilities. For all that, the panel's arguments for retaining veto powers in the hands of a few fail to convince.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

REFORMING THE UNITED NATIONS

UNHAPPY COHABITATION

Stem cells, cloning, and ethics

Assisting crime victims

Parliament & the people

Kanchi Mutt issue