SPEAKING FREELY A new beginning for the United Nations By Gyan Basnet
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please click
hereif you are interested in contributing. Articles submitted for this
section allow our readers to express their opinions and do not necessarily meet
the same editorial standards of Asia Times Online's regular contributors.
The United Nations was founded in 1945 in order to replace the League of
Nations and in so doing to bring about a new world order. Today the
organization's structure still reflects the circumstances pertaining at the
time of its founding, but in the meantime the world has changed dramatically.
Modern history, as taught, tells us that this international organization has
become an essential part of the system for dealing with international problems,
but we need to ask how relevant the UN is in the
changed political circumstances of today? How successful has it been in
fulfilling its promises and living up to its ideals? Does it truly constitute a
global voice? Just how successful has it been in maintaining the peace in every
part of the world?
The UN has been able to prevent the recurrence of war on the scale of the First
and Second World Wars. It has been instrumental in maintaining an international
balance of power. It has played a role in the demise of colonialism on the one
hand and of apartheid on the other. Its agencies, such as the World Health
Organization, UNICEF, and UNESCO, have keenly participated in the
transformation of the international social sector. Moreover, despite being
essentially a political body, it has provided a platform via its conventions
and declarations for matters extra-political, eg human rights, women's rights
and climate change.
However, the UN has failed to prevent over 100 major conflicts resulting in the
death of over 25 million people. Its peacekeeping missions in several parts in
the world failed, and it was unable to stop genocides in African countries such
as Rwanda, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, and Sierra-Leone. Similarly, it was unable to
prevent massive genocides in the Soviet Union under Stalin and in Cambodia
under Pol Pot, and it failed to prevent the US and its allies entering an
illegal war in Iraq. For decades Israel has taken unilateral action against its
neighbors, but a resolution of the border crisis appears to be as far away as
ever. It was nowhere to be seen, too, when North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) bombs rained down on the former Yugoslavia.
Today, trans-governmentalism is rapidly becoming the most widespread and
effective mode of international governance. Harvard Professor Anne Slaughter
even points out that the present processes of interaction and interdependence
are transitional only, and that the decline and ultimate demise of the state
will lead to "trans-national class formations" followed by "newer, more
inclusive and larger social organizations". Thus, transnational interaction has
dramatically intensified into what Anthony Gidden views as "a global
cosmopolitan society".
The globalization of manufacturing, finance, information, information
dissemination and trade is evidence of the growing interdependence of countries
and societies across the whole world. To be more specific, globally integrated
trade and finance define the international economic order of today. With
economic, social, political, cultural, religious and legal dimensions so
intertwined in this new global order, the traditional role of individual
governments is changing.
The period immediately after the UN's founding in 1945 was marked not only by
the division of world politics into two hostile camps, ie the capitalist West
and the communist East, but also by a confrontation between the North and the
South as the latter at last gained a voice on the international stage. Since
then, though, the world has witnessed huge political upheavals and social
transformations such as the demise of the Soviet Union following the fall of
the Berlin Wall and, much more recently, the Arab Spring and a new wave of
resistance to globalization, Occupy Wall Street, has gained a measure of
universal support.
The Westphalia view of international law as a disciplinary force between nation
states, each with its own economic, social and political authority has,
however, now ceased to be appropriate in a global society where the power of
non-state actors continues to grow. As cross-border activity and practices
increase in number, Professor B Sausa Santos argues that the nation-state is
less able to maintain the level of control that it once had over the flow of
persons, goods, money and ideas. The ease of capital movement and the
increasingly powerful world financial markets and multi-national corporations,
backed by fast communications and therefore information, have meant that parts
of the world such as Asia, Africa, and Central and Latin America have been
drawn into the global economy at an increasingly rapid rate. Now monolithic
financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund
are the economic order of the day.
Moreover, rapid population growth, environmental decline, and poverty lead to
economic stagnation, political instability, and possible state collapse.
Increased globalization effectively diminishes the role of the UN. As Professor
Serge Sur argues, General Assembly resolutions are relegated to a lower rank,
and major UN conferences become things of the past. CNN becomes the world's
communicator, and in the new economic order, the World Trade Organization plays
a far larger role than the UN. In short, the UN's inter-state, collegial style
of diplomacy has little relevance in the globalized world of today.
Today, the UN has been reduced to a talking shop where big and powerful nations
show their might. Power politics and use of the UN as a tool for serving
self-interest has reduced the relevance of the world body: it has become a
hostage of the major powers, and it has totally failed to understand the
present changed global political order.
The collapse of the League of Nations in the 20th century led almost
automatically to consideration of how to replace it. A similar failure by the
UN now is producing a similar reaction today. Former Secretary General Kofi
Annan once said: ''We should not shy away from the need to improve and, where
necessary, change the structure and function of the United Nations and other
international institutions.'' However, reforming it alone would be like pouring
new wine into old bottles. To Professor Slaughter, the 1945 world order is a
chimera: she emphasizes that the UN functions effectively only when it has the
full support of the major powers. Not one of those powers would contemplate
strengthening the international institution at its own expense: any attempt at
change would inevitably produce a backlash. Nevertheless, the world must be
willing to accept change, and that change must mean the establishment of a
replacement institution.
At the time of the UN's own establishment a huge part of the world's population
was living under colonial rule. This body of humanity was given no voice at all
at the new international political forum. What was conceived with a 1945
mentality is no longer adequate for a world that has moved so far since that
date. The generation of the twenty first century, with globalization, rapid
advances in technology, and especially the Internet, is justified in demanding
a forum more attuned to current circumstances. Today, the nature and scope of
the political organization should be determined by the nature and intensity of
the world's current problems.
Reform within the UN itself will not suffice in this changed situation.
Fundamental change is essential. Just as the UN was established at a series of
conferences in San Francisco attended by the victor nations of World War II, so
a similar series of world conferences should now involve all countries. The aim
should be to establish a new form of global institution to replace completely
the current UN. The new institution needs to be inclusive and to be based on
equal voices, equal power sharing, and with strong enforcement mechanisms
adapted to the present political world order. It must represent all continents
and nations and must provide a strong form of global governance. It must
promise equal justice, equal distribution of world resources, a withering of
the gap between rich and poor countries, and an all-out assault on climate
change and environmental degradation. The need for this new institution to
replace the UN is urgent: its mission must be to achieve in the 21st century
peace, social harmony among all races and religions, and the full recognition
of human rights.
Dr Gyan Basnet, who holds a PhD in International Human Rights law at
Lancaster University, UK, is a researcher and an Advocate in the Supreme Court
Nepal. He can be reached at gbasnetji@yahoo.com.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
