Kofi Annan admits the UN is largely irrelevant
But he misdiagnoses the chief problem, which is too many member states of the wrong kind

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has admitted that the UN is mostly irrelevant to the most serious issues in the world today (NYT link requires registration).

"Repetitive and sterile debates often crowd out the items that really matter," he said in the report. "Decisions can often be reached only on a lower-common-denominator basis and, once reached, command little or no attention beyond the confines of the General Assembly chamber."

Let us give genuine credit to Mr. Annan for having the discernment to see this fact, obvious though it is, and also for having the courage to say for the public record. It is a refreshing admission from the UN’s top bureaucrat.

But bureaucrat Annan is, and a consummate one at that. His prescription? Strengthen the bureaucracy.

While more specific proposals will be unveiled in his speech to the General Assembly in two weeks, Mr. Annan indicated that he would favor expanding the number of permanent Council members, now five nations, each with veto power, and the elected membership, 10 countries serving staggered two-year terms.

If 14 nations on the UNSC are usually paralyzed into inactivity, what dynamism does Annan expect the council to have with, say, three more permanent members and seven more elected members?

The chief problem with the United Nations is not that the UNSC is too small or needs more members. Its chief problem is that it no longer stands for freedom, democracy and economic development in the world. It has too many members, not too few, and oppressive regimes, authoritarian governments and undemocratic oligarchies have an equal voice in world affairs as democratic nations. There is no reason for that.

It may be helpful to remember that the real reason the UN was established was spelled out in January 1942, when President Roosevelt began using the name, "United nations." That month that the US, Britain, the USSR and China signed a Declaration of the United Nations "to defend life, liberty, independence, and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands."

The UN was conceived as a means by which those four Great Powers (France was not originally included) would enforce order and discipline upon an unruly world. Franklin Roosevelt stated this intention clearly to British Foreign Minister Anthony Eden and Churchill in the spring of 1943. That fall the US, UK, USSR and China signed the Moscow Declaration in which they agreed to maintain international peace after WW II ended. Membership in the UN was to be open to any sovereign state, but in Roosevelt's mind the responsibility for policing the world would belong to the four Great Powers.

Today, the medicine the UN needs to be worthwhile is exactly the medicine it will never take. A top-to-bottom reform not only of its structure but also of the qualifications of membership is needed. Non-democratic states should have only non-voting representation. Membership on the UNSC should be restricted only to democratic states.

It’ll never happen, of course. So it is really time for another Great Power Summit to establish a replacement organization. Of course, that won't happen either, so nothing will change except some minor details on the organization chart. If that.

by Donald Sensing, 9/9/2003 05:27:14 PM. Permalink |