The United Nations: A New Beginning

The best thing to have happened to the UN and the EU is that the United States has become serious about reform of the UN and Britain about reform of the EU. The biggest threat to these Institutions is that the US does not succeed in New York during the 60th General Assembly and the UK does not succeed in Brussels during its current Presidency. There is a bright future for both these Institutions if they can focus on increasing their operational efficiency and effectiveness whilst recognising the overwhelming desire of people to be governed by their own nation state and not a supra-national body.

The arguments about the reform of the UN and reform of the EU have striking parallels.

Both institutions were founded by treaties signed by sovereign governments. Both were underpinned by a determination to avoid another world war. Both were created by the same then fashionable mind-set; that “the Nation State, given international legitimacy through the Treaty of Westphalia, had failed, and instead had plunged the world again and again into catastrophic wars." The same mind-set determined that sharing sovereignty was "the way forward.” Both these new Institutions were required to focus on peace, security, and development - the UN in the newly independent colonies; the EU in a devastated post-war Europe and later in post-communist Eastern Europe.

Both Institutions have élites, who, on the pretext of “reform” will attempt to gather more and more power to the centre - trying to create in the case of the UN an embryonic world government with power to levy taxes, and in the case of the EU a European Super-state. Both endeavours involve eroding the national sovereignty of their Member States and I do not agree with them.

Arguments are now raging at the UN as the 60th General Assembly opens. The US Administration opposes centralisation and demands greater transparency and better governance. This opposition has been seized upon by others who also oppose centralisation for entirely different reasons. They are against the proposed Ping /Annan reforms because by centralising they interfere in the internal affairs of these countries. Since these countries are not poverty-stricken they see little to gain from the “deal” offering increased aid.

In the EU, the arguments against centralisation also resonate with the arguments against the European “Constitution” and its now famous rejection by the peoples of France and the Netherlands. These people in their millions came together to stop the creation of a European super state at the expense of their own national self-determination. The centralisers promised a new European Utopia, a new Super Power with a single Foreign Minister, a European President presiding over 25 Member States of 430 million people, and the people quietly said -- no thank you.

Both rejections have a common ground. That common ground is a newly reinforced self-confidence and belief in local identity. National and local self-determination is becoming paramount in contemporary affairs and is an empowerment not to be yielded to remote centres of power.

Those who reject the reforms see the centre as remote and unaccountable. They do not believe that “one size fits all” and they do not believe that a powerful centre; be it at the UN in New York, or the Commission in Brussels, can do any better than they can themselves. They see themselves equally empowered or better empowered to act locally than large monolithic centralised bureaucracies acting from afar.

Big Government cannot deliver. That is the lesson at the start of the 21st century. By its very nature, big government with a bloated bureaucracy, top-down management, and vulnerability to corruption all point to one thing. Big Government is inherently bound to fail; and it is becoming obvious that neither the UN nor the EU Emperors have any clothes.

Why is it that in this short span of 60 years since the last World War, the current generation feel that they can so confidently challenge the conventional wisdom of their grandparents? That generation had fought a war, and gone on to found the UN and the EU. Where did the plan go wrong? Was it a failure to foresee the world changing before their very eyes?

Today we live in a global market full of images. That market-place has its stalls laid out. They are the internet search-engines, chat-rooms, blogs, newscasts, television, radio, CNN, BBC World, Fox News, Al Jazeera, SMS text, emailing cell-phones with instant photography etc. etc. Instant news from many different sources. Yet even more change is on the way as new media sources are now threatening to replace the print and broadcast news sources of the recent past. All this has shrunk the world. What happens with the tsunami in Indonesia, the floods in New Orleans, the terrorists in London becomes local; impacting in my village, in my reality, in my home and among my neighbours and friends. That instant reality will present a challenge to the survival of remote governments and supra-national institutions. It is no surprise that eBay can say that the "price of anything in the world is now the price fixed by an eBay auction" This is empowerment of the individual through markets on a massive scale unimaginable to the founding fathers of the UN and the EU.

This new world is owned by the current generation of opinion-formers and the consumer and political markets they influence. These opinion-formers are educated, technically savvy and opinionated. They form what is now called the "Common Sphere" a definition for largely English-speaking freedom-oriented, people of Europe, the Americas, Australasia, and now China and the Indian Subcontinent. They are bound by a common culture of shared values; values rooted in globalisation and the liberal market, the rule of law and technology. This is their village, their locality. Being local is important to them in this new world where everything is diverse, but local to their electronic village. Unity through diversity; not one size fits all.

How can the UN exist in this brave new world and still be relevant?

The United States, the United Kingdom, and others who fought together in the Second World War to save the world from tyranny, were the people who created the United Nations at San Francisco in 1945, and they told us in the Preamble to the Charter why they had done so.

• They created it to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in their lifetime had brought untold sorrow to mankind
• They created it to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
• They created it to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained
• And they created it to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

They gave us a noble set of objectives, and I do not think we have wholly failed to live up to them, for in my many contacts around the world I detect a growing willingness to put those principles into practice in every Continent. Often this is better done on a regional basis, and in this connection I give my wholehearted support to the fledgling Pan-African Parliament, and the African Union.

“Business as usual” is not an option at the UN. The next Secretary-General must have a broad political vision, not someone steeped in the UN system or the culture of foreign relations. He must have the courage and determination to tackle the problems which can no longer be avoided, and the personal skills to bring those with conflicting interests together. He must restore public confidence in an institution battered by revelations of sexual misconduct by UN peacekeepers and corruption in the oil-for-food program. He must clean up the UN Organisation and make it more lean and efficient. For example:

• All UN internal accounts should be opened up to public scrutiny on written request. All accounts, and programs such as "oil-for-food" programs would be open-to-questioning by journalists and members of the public on payment of a reasonable fee. An independent UN Information Commissioner should be appointed to determine any refused requests.

• A Register of Staff Interests and Declarations of any income received by UN staff from third parties would be required. Any members of a UN employee's family in receipt of income from the UN would have to be declared, justified and approved by a UN Director.

• Divisional directors will be responsible for signing off their accounts for each distinct operating unit. The "signing off" process will require the Divisional Chief Executive and the Divisional Finance Director to declare that: (i) they accept responsibility for the accounting information; and (ii) that they have reviewed the operational efficiency and cost effectiveness of their operating unit at least once during the year.

• A long-range strategy and planning unit is needed to ensure that so far as possible the UN is setting program objectives at least five years ahead and that actual performance is being properly monitored against targets. Shortfalls in performance must be explained and discussed in an atmosphere that is constructive and helpful in bringing program delivery back onto the original target achievement levels.

• The recommendations of the Volcker Commission need to be carefully considered with lessons learned, improvements implemented and changes monitored to ensure they are achieved. We need to draw upon best practice in governments and large corporations to create an efficient, accountable structure which will deliver best value for money, and within which irregularities of the kind seen in the oil-for-food affair will be impossible. Although, the UN is not a “for-profit” corporation – it’s status as a political organisation should not be allowed to prevent it from adopting the most effective management methods whilst at the same time responding to the needs and aspirations of its members.

• A Complete Zero Based and Activity Based Budget Review of the UN’s Financial Affairs should be commenced as soon as possible. The purpose would be to focus the UN and its associated agencies on delivering programs within existing expenditure levels by combining expenditure increases for effective and successful programs with expenditure reductions or removals from ineffective programs.

But the UN can not and should not try to do everything. The prime responsibility for the peace and well-being of people rests first with the family and then with the nation-state, and we must resist the accretion of power to the centre. States must at the same time resist the temptation to blame the UN for their own failures.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the international community holds national governments internationally responsible for protecting their people from gross violations of human rights in their own country.

Where nation-states cannot or will not cope, regional organisations should deal with the matter, with due regard to Article 53 of the UN Charter. Some are highly developed, like the EU, others such as the African Union are in the early stages and need help to create the necessary capacity and legal structure. Only where the nation states and regional organisations cannot cope is there a need for action at the highest international level. For specialist subjects, organisations like the World Trade Organisation are the appropriate body. Excellent work is done by the UN’s Specialised Agencies, such as WHO, UNDP, ICAO and IMO, but even here there is scope for an in-depth review to ensure that they are properly focussed, and deliver best value for money.

We also have to recognise that the UN has no direct democratic legitimacy, nor even indirect for in some member-states there is no real democracy at all. This being so, the organs and conferences of the UN must not behave as though they had legislative power. The organs of the UN need to have closer contact with democratically elected parliaments, and I welcome the grant of observer status to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Enlarging the Security Council will not necessarily make it more effective, as it is difficult enough for the present 15-member Council to reach agreement. Nevertheless important countries which are not permanent members do need to be represented on the Council. There are so many vested interests that agreement will be difficult to reach, but an interim solution may be for the regions to elect to the Council the most important countries of their region, and countries which have made the best contribution to the UN in cash and actions. Perhaps Art 23(2) of the Charter should be changed to allow immediate re-election of non-permanent members.

We need a system which rewards countries with the best record of respect for human rights, good governance, and the Rule of Law. Indeed, Article 23(1) of the Charter requires regard to be specially paid to the contribution of Members to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, as well as to equitable geographical distribution.

UN Peacekeepers are generally not well prepared, and sometimes include troops from countries with poor human rights records. A Standing Force is not practical, but we must create a highly trained cadre of officers and senior NCOs able to take charge and train troops at short notice. These cadres would themselves be trained by Member-States with a proven record of success in this type of operations. Peacekeeping forces must have a Chapter VII resolution authorising them to use force, and the sending countries must realise that if they are to be a credible force they must be willing to take casualties. They must be able to stand up to insurgents as the Australian commander of UN forces stood up to the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. He thereby enabled elections to take place and the Khmer Rouge ceased to be a dominant force.

Peace-building requires an entirely different set of skills to peace-keeping. There is a need for regional and global peace-building commissions to develop the necessary skills and capabilities.

A long-range planning group should be established to predict situations in which genocide may be likely, and to advise regional organisations and the UN itself on the action required. In the case of natural disasters the UN must have a highly trained cadre of military, medical, scientific and other experts available to take action at short notice. Even more important is the need to predict and advise before disaster strikes. The recent floods in New Orleans have shown that even the most developed countries are not immune, and the expertise of countries like Bangladesh, with many years experience of flood disasters, must be on call.

Special attention must be paid at regional and global level to threats to the natural environment, and to energy supplies, which transcend national boundaries.

The UN should encourage co-operation among developing countries – many of whom possess special skills and experience, and do not need to rely on the developed world. Certain principles also need to be established for aid programs. For example except in cases of emergency the emphasis must be to enable poorer countries to develop economies which can be self-sustaining. People do not want handouts, but they do need a hand-up.

The role of the private sector in the effective delivery of aid needs to be developed, and means must be found for small and medium-sized enterprises in the developing world to get the finance they need on terms which are sustainable. These are the big businesses of the future, and these are the people who provide the most employment. Only with a thriving business community can a country hope to generate enough tax resources to be self-sufficient. Fair access to world markets for the goods and services produced by these companies is essential.

Far too much of the aid resources donated by the people of the developed world are stolen or wasted in the donee countries. Effective means need to be urgently devised to put a stop to this scandal, which is of far greater proportions than the “oil-for-food” affair, which has rightly attracted so much criticism. Proper consideration needs to be given to the argument that “More Trade Less Aid” is the way out of poverty for many of the world’s poorer people.

The UN must also set an example. It creates a bad impression in the developing world when people who have nothing see expatriate aid workers driving around in shiny new vehicles and living in the best hotels and air-conditioned offices. Expat. numbers must be kept to a minimum, with people from the region being engaged and where necessary trained.

The Charter of the UN gives it prime responsibility for the maintenance of world peace, but its limitations must be appreciated. The UN itself has no forces with which it could intervene in a dispute between any of the major powers of the world, and it can only act as mediator and facilitator in such cases.

The UN must make it clear that terrorism against unarmed civilians is totally unacceptable whatever the reason, and that the fact that some other state or body is alleged to be, or may actually be, committing terrorist acts can never be accepted as an excuse. The quid pro-quo is for regional organisations and the UN itself to be much more pro-active in redress of grievances. The possibility that terrorists may acquire a nuclear weapon is by far the greatest threat which the world faces today.

Poverty, disease, conflict and despair are all too often the result of national governance without the necessary skills, experience, and attitude. There is a major role for the regional organisations, with support and coordination from the UN, to provide personnel, training, and systems to enable governments to administer their countries and develop their resources to the best possible extent. Aid money should go to those who can demonstrate the capacity to use it wisely, and no country should be encouraged to borrow unwisely in the expectation that debts will be written off.

Independent and professional judges, police, civil servants and military officers and a free press are at least, if not more, important than the semblance of democracy. Respect for the law must also include the upholding of legal protection for foreign investors who are prepared to risk capital in countries that need employment-creating investment.

The UN undoubtedly needs a Human Rights Council, which will be in permanent session, thus avoiding long delays and political manoeuvring by states against which complaints are made. Members should be elected from a list of member-states having a record of respect for human rights and the rule of law. The Secretary-General should, working with the Security Council, set the criteria used to certify eligibility. A right of appeal to the ICJ would exist.

An effective system of justice at the international level is needed to ensure that senior political and military figures are brought to justice if they commit grave crimes against humanity. This can be done by the ICC as between states who accept the Rome Statute, or by ad hoc courts, as in the case of Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Yugoslavia.

This is a big agenda of modernisation and reform, but I see no reason for the process to fail. There is certainly a demand for change. Also, there is more binding the Member States and their peoples together than pulling them apart. I believe that agreement will be reached on the Millennium Development Goals and increased ODA with Debt Relief, a Peace-building Commission and Fund, a Democracy Fund, a natural disaster and coordination system, targeted sanctions against human rights violations and a strong Human Rights Commission. Management reforms of the secretariat with one-time staff buyouts will provide greater flexibility for the Secretary-General to manage effectively.

We should not be daunted. As I travel around the world I sense a convergence of values and ideas among ordinary people, but those values are not always reflected by their own governments. We need an international system in which responsible governments are rewarded, and irresponsible or downright criminal, governments are penalised. We need a United Nations which reflects the shared values of ordinary people throughout the world, and which delivers to them leadership, inspiration, and hope for the future.