The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Can the U.N., member states enlarge security?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Apr 27, 2005

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Can the U.N., member states enlarge security?

Anita Inder Singh

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has set out a roadmap for the future.

PEACE AND security are the highest goals of the United Nations, how can they be enhanced? First, by the realisation by member states of the U.N. that peace and security are not just about preventing war; they are also about promoting development and human rights in the interests of the larger freedom of the individuals who comprise states.

Secondly, by a radical overhaul of U.N. institutions, so that they can respond more effectively to the challenges of development and security. Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General, sets out wide ranging suggestions in his report In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights For All, which was presented to the General Assembly on March 21.

Mr. Annan's ongoing visit to New Delhi, coming soon after much criticism of the U.N. in the United States, will highlight the significance of multilateralism in promoting the development, security, and human rights that reinforce each other in an age of rapid technological advances, economic interdependence, globalisation, and dramatic geopolitical change.

Contrary to the recurrent assertion that states are withering away in the age of globalisation, the Report rightly points out that states are the basic and indispensable blocks of the international system; they should be more accountable and strengthened so that they can increase security, development and justice for their citizens.

The challenge of development

Discord between states on how to forge holistic security not only deepens inequalities within and between states; it also threatens the very principles on which the U.N. was founded in 1945. A new global strategy for development, and new mechanisms to entrench democracy and human rights worldwide are needed. In East and South Asia, more than 200 million people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990. But almost two-thirds of the world's population lives on less than $1 a day. Sub-Saharan Africa is the epicentre of the crisis. Can the world meet the 2015 deadline for achieving the Millennium Development Goals of halving the proportion of the world's poor, ensuring universal primary education, and reversing the tide of lethal diseases? Possibly; if rich countries disburse 0.7 per cent of their gross domestic income as foreign aid. The resulting new security will benefit all countries.

The U.N. has unique normative strength and global reach to bring states together in containing terrorism. Member states of the U.N. should agree on a definition of terrorism and a new convention against terrorism that will outlaw terrorism in all its forms. India would welcome such a convention.

States cannot go it alone. Even the world's sole superpower knows that its war on global terrorism needs international support — and the legitimacy conferred by the U.N. on its anti-terrorist operations. Indeed, rich countries including the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, and Italy have also confronted terrorists, and the perpetrators of 9/11 were not poor.

Terrorism threatens all countries; it has created a new insecurity and the freedom of rich and poor alike.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not authorised by the U.N. Security Council, and it shook the very foundations of the international system. But the U.S. is not omnipotent: it has sought U.N. support for the reconstruction of Iraq. The Report suggests that decisions based on consensus on what constitutes a threat, when the use of force is legitimate, and who should authorise it could command broad respect rather than dividing the international community.

Reforming the U.N.

Many U.N. institutions need reform. The Security Council, in particular, does not reflect the changed realities of political and economic power since 1945.

The Report's proposals to make the Security Council more representative have relevance for India. In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Annan's new chef de cabinet, Mark Malloch Brown, said that India, Germany, Japan, and Brazil had a strong case for being included in an expanded Security Council as permanent members. India's case for permanent membership is strengthened by its being one of the largest contributors to the peacekeeping authorised by the Security Council.

Seventy-four thousand Indian troops, military observers, and civilian police officers have participated in 41 out the 59 U.N. peacekeeping operations established thus far.

At present India contributes to nine out of 16 ongoing U.N. peacekeeping missions.

Possibly every member state wants the U.N. to serve its purposes. Paradoxically, that wish reflects the indispensability of multilateralism.

The tension between international norms and reasons of state is permanent. The Report suggests why and how this tension could be reduced to advance larger freedom. Will the United Nations and its member states rise to the occasion?

(Dr. Anita Inder Singh is Ford Foundation Fellow at the Centre for Law and Governance, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)

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

Opinion