U.N. Reform: Can The U.N. Become Relevant To International Security?

U.N. Reform: Can The U.N. Become Relevant To International Security?

by Bernard Perlstein
News Informant
April 11, 2005

In the Sudanese province of Darfur, since early 2004, government-supported Arabist militiamen have terrorized black Africans. In addition to killing and raping civilians, the attacks have displaced over a million people. Tens of thousands have already died. Yet ten years after the U.N. and the West said “never again,” following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, the U.N. Security Council has done nothing to stop the atrocities.

Against the backdrop of the Sudan atrocities, the controversy over the Iraq war, and recent U.N. scandals, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan released a report, on March 21, suggesting proposals for U.N. reform.

At an April 6 forum titled “The United Nations & Global Security”, held at the University of Chicago, and jointly sponsored by the Americans for Informed Democracy and The Stanley Foundation, three professors discussed Annan’s proposals and the potential for the U.N. to take a larger role in global security. The participants were Patrick Callahan, Chairman of the Political Science Department at DePaul University; Douglass Cassel, Director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University, and a former human rights consultant to the U.N.; and David E. Guinn, Executive Director of the International Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University.

During the professors’ presentations and a lively question and answer period, the three maintained a cautious optimism regarding the potential of the U.N. to meet the obligations of global security. But the discussions revealed differences in how best to address security issues in the 21st century.

Annan’s Proposals

Annan’s report, entitled “In Larger Freedom,” is likely to become controversial in both its essentials and details. Different aspects of the several proposals are likely to be opposed by various groups. To some degree, this reflects the range of opinions of what the U.N. should represent. To some, including many in the U.S., the U.N. should give legitimacy to international security, as opposed to the U.S. government’s unilateralism.

In other parts of the world, some believe that the U.N. should be a complete counterpoint to the world’s greatest superpower. And some in the U.S. believe that the U.N. can never meet the needs of international security and human rights. The last view is reflected in anti-U.N. views being expressed in Congress by members of the International Relations committee.

Annan’s proposed U.N. reforms deal with the U.N.’s main bodies, the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, as well as a working definition of “terrorism” and rules for when to allow “use of force.”

For the General Assembly, Annan proposes reforms that would create more efficient processes for what is seen as a slow-moving 191-member body.

Annan has submitted two proposals for expanding the U.N. Security Council. The current Security Council has 5 permanent members with veto power over any resolution: the United States, Russia, the U.K., France and China. The Council also elects an additional 10 members for a two-year term. One of Annan’s proposals calls for adding 6 new permanent members and 3 new two-year ones. The countries likely to be considered for the permanent slots are a group of geographically dispersed large nations — Brazil, India, Egypt, Germany, Japan and either Nigeria or South Africa. These new permanent members would not have the veto-power of the original five.

Annan’s alternate proposal would add 8 new long-term members, elected to four-year terms, while adding an 11th two-year member.

Annan’s proposal for modification of the U.N. Human Rights Commission is even more dramatic. Annan has reacted to cynicism stemming from membership granted to certain countries. Six members of the current 53-member Commission — China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and Sudan — are viewed by human right’s groups as among the world’s greatest violators of human rights.

Annan proposes creating a new, smaller Human Rights Committee and requiring a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly for admission. The report also proposed a guiding rule for member countries. “Those elected should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards,” it said.

The report proposed an international definition of terrorism, as “any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.”

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the new proposals is its statement on “use of force.” The U.N. Charter has always recognized the legitimate right of countries to fight in self-defense. Annan’s new proposal recognizes other circumstances where the use of force would be legitimate. But here, he grants the legitimization of such force to the Security Council.

Forum Discussion

Prof. Callahan praised Annan’s proposals as both “far-reaching” and “realistic.” He pointed out for special mention the proposed universal definition of terrorism and specification of a rule for “use of force.” Unfortunately, Prof. Callahan also mentioned that the U.S. has shown only “lukewarm support” for the new proposals. In addition, he considered the appointment of a supporter of U.S. unilateralism, John R. Bolton, as next ambassador to the U.N. as a sign of lack of support for use of the U.N. to legitimize force.

Prof. Cassel was hopeful over proposals to expand the Security Council to include important countries from other regions. He also referred to an informal Annan proposal that the 5 countries with veto-power not use the veto on resolutions concerning human rights violations.

What About Regional Organizations?

The third presenter, Prof. Guinn, pointed out these limitations in suggesting an alternative – regional organizations of countries to enforce security within their jurisdictions. One important example he specified was NATO’s Kosovo intervention, after Serbia’s Milosevic invaded and began ethnic cleansing against ethnic Albanians. While the U.S. has played a leading role in the intervention, European members of NATO have also provided troops and money for the ongoing peacekeeping effort.

Prof. Guinn also mentioned the African Union (AU) as another example of a regional organization which might take on the responsibility of keeping the peace in its region. The AU has already provided observers for Darfur, and might be able to take on a greater role with greater international financial support.

The politics of the Darfur crisis represents one of the saddest examples of U.N. paralysis. The U.S. has pushed for sanctions against Sudan. But France opposes sanctions, purportedly because there is not enough evidence of Sudanese government involvement in the killing. Yet credible international observers on the ground – though few in number – insist that not only has the government funded and armed the Janjaweed militia but has actually coordinated air support for its attacks.

The Chinese are even more adamantly opposed to any resolutions against Sudan. The Chinese are one of the world’s largest importers of oil, and Sudan is seen as an important supplier. China’s attitude of realpolitik works against interference in the internal politics of other countries, especially allies.

On the other hand, the U.S. has, until recently, opposed efforts by France and the U.K. to assign Darfur’s war crime trials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. The Bush administration is against allowing, even in theory, the ICC jurisdiction over trying U.S. citizens for war crimes. The U.S. therefore opposed giving the ICC jurisdiction over Darfur war crimes because it might lend the body legitimacy. However, the U.S. representative recently abstained from, rather than veto, a recent resolution for this purpose, allowing it to pass.

There are several reasons, Prof. Guinn said, for entrusting more of the international security to these regional organizations.

• These organizations include multiple countries and reflect regional sensibilities, lending legitimacy to a military intervention. • • Regional organizations have a greater incentive to maintain peace than U.N. countries on other continents. • • This would eliminate at least one reason that the U.N. has had for not intervening – lack of interest. • Another regional organization that might play the same role in the future is the Organization of American States (OAS) in North and South America.

However, Prof. Guinn admitted that some regions, particularly Asia, do not have permanent bodies up to this task. And some in the audience objected that certain of these organizations, such as the Arab League, might not act for the greater good.

In defense of the U.N., Prof. Cassel spoke of the need for a stronger global organization. Although he admitted significant differences among the member nations, he believed that having a world organization that can respond to international crises is important. The Annan reforms, he believes, are a step in that direction.

The Prospects for Reform

No proposal is expected to go far without the support of the United States. ] James Paul, executive director of the U.N. watchdog Global Policy Forum, told The Christian Science Monitor, “Nothing in the international system changes unless Washington is happy with it.”

Initial U.S. reaction was polite but non-committal. A spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., Richard A. Grenell, said, “We have been eager to receive the secretary general’s reform ideas and are now giving his new report every consideration.”

The U.S. is reportedly concerned that specifying the circumstances that allow “use of force,” no matter how vague, will limit the country’s ability to respond to international threats. What’s more, the “use of force” clause states that a U.N. Security Council resolution is necessary to determine legitimate use of force in all situations where self-defense does not apply. The Bush administration is highly unlikely to cede to any international body the authority to determine the legitimacy of war. Yet the Security Council’s historical reluctance to justify any war that it does not deem to be for self-defense can only strengthen the U.S.’s reluctance to accept this proposal.

Critics of the U.N. point out that only twice in its history has the Security Council granted support for the use of force. The first was for the Korean War. That decision was made only because the Russian delegation was temporarily boycotting the U.N. at the time of the vote. The second was for the Gulf War in 1991, against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. But even in these cases, the Security Council specified national self-defense, rather than international “collective security,” as the rationale.

And there will be other aspects of the report with which the Bush administration will be unhappy. One section of the report, dealing with “Freedom From Want,” specifies that economically advanced countries provide at least 0.7 percent of GDP in foreign aid assistance. The U.S. currently gives only an estimated 0.18 percent for economic assistance. But defenders of the U.S. say that this figure does not tell the whole story, since the U.S. provides a huge share of military assistance.

The Bush administration perhaps would oppose such measures on philosophical grounds. Although “freedom from want” is one of the four freedoms for which President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated that the U.S. was fighting in the Second World War, U.S. conservatives do not see economic needs as a part of human rights. And “economic rights” do not resonate across the U.S. political spectrum today.

Despite the U.S.’s recent compromise position on ICC jurisdiction over Darfur war crimes, the nomination of John Bolton as U.N. representative is telling. The selection of a career supporter of U.S. unilateralism shows that the administration does not trust the U.N. on issues of international security.

But the U.S. is not the only country that might oppose the aforementioned reforms. It is unlikely that the 5 permanent Security Council members will agree to limit their use of veto. And China will oppose the addition of Japan, an historical adversary, as member of the Security Council.

To understand the difficulty of getting the member countries to agree on anything, even U.N. reform, one need look no further than the current situation in Iraq. Annan opposed the war, but is himself surprised, now that elections have taken place, by the lack of member support for rebuilding the country.

Is An Annan Proposal Viable?

One last problem is whether U.N. Secretary-General Annan still has the political capital to expend on getting a hearing for his proposals. In view of the two recent U.N. scandals, involving high level officials, the release of Annan’s report may raise questions of its viability.

One scandal implicated a leader of a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Africa in several charges of sexual harassment. Annan had initially defended the accused. An interim report on the other, Oil-for-Food program scandal, released soon after the publication of Annan’s report, officially cleared Annan. However, the same report implicated his son in the scandal and also criticized several of the Secretary-General’s decisions regarding the program.

In his report, Annan tried to put at least one of these scandals behind him by proposing “zero tolerance” for sexual exploitation by peacekeepers. However, both scandals have tarnished his image, leaving him with less power of moral suasion.