|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Liaison Newsletter > LIAISON-Canada Electronic Newsletter #5
The United Nations in Trouble On October 24, 1945, the UN General Assembly met for the first time in the hope of beginning a process that would lead to the end of war ("no more war", as President Truman put it.) A year ago statesmen celebrated its fiftieth anniversary, and although none were so bold as to predict the end of war, there were many who praised the UN’s achievements. Now, a year later, praise is mixed with foreboding or scepticism. In the words of Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs addressed to the Assembly on September 24, the UN’s ability to meet “the broad security needs of people around the world is damaged”. Is the UN damaged beyond repair? The short answer is "no". But there is certainly need for repair. The damage results from two main factors: a structure that no longer meets the demands made upon it, and an inability or unwillingness by some members to provide the resources the UN requires to accomplish the goals of the Charter. Critics like to place blame on the UN Secretariat as an obstacle to reform, but given the budgetary and other limits imposed upon the authority of the Secretary General, and the fact that outstanding assessments to the UN regular budget of $1.3 billion had reached $0.8 billion by mid-1996, it is a wonder that the secretariat can still provide the services they do to member states. No, the chief obstacle to reform is not Mr. Boutros-Ghali; it is the lack of agreement amongst the major powers about how to go about the job of re-distributing the duties and privileges of membership.  The membership of the Security Council was increased to fifteen from eleven in 1963, representing some 13% of UN members; now it represents less than 8% of a UN membership of 185. It is therefore urgent to amend the Charter again to reflect this increase, including the addition of two or three new permanent members to the five who were originally awarded this privilege in 1945 (USA, China, France, UK and Russia). Obvious candidates are Japan and Germany, the second and third largest contributors to the regular budget; but so too are India and Brazil, and perhaps others. No agreement is yet in sight on these issues, and in the meantime, the legitimacy of Council decisions is bound to be questioned by important member states. Canada, for one, while not aspiring to the status of permanent member, would wish to be consulted about Council decisions that might lead to requests for Canadian participation in peacekeeping operations. The problems of the 54 member Economic and Social Council relate more to function than to membership. It needs to acquire more authority over the diverse activities of UN agencies and funds engaged in these fields, some of which overlap and are poorly coordinated. Until it does so, donations to UN voluntary programmes, already at their lowest level this decade, are likely to decrease further. While the lights at the UN will not soon be turned off, there is an air of crisis about its finances. Some $3 billion in assessments for UN regular operations and peacekeeping expenses were still outstanding in mid-1966, about half of which were owed by the US alone. These arrears are slowly being paid off, but in the meantime the UN is unable to re-imburse the troop contributors, including Canada. Member states are assessed a share of UN expenses based on capacity to pay, the US share being 25%. If the Congress continues to cut back or delay US payments the outlook for UN peacekeeping is dark. The alternatives are regional or unilateral intervention in conflicts that threaten peace, with or without UN blessing. These may or may not succeed (witness Vietnam and Afghanistan), but they do not reflect the ideals of the Charter, ideals which Canada has always championed. "Globalization" is now a familiar phrase. Its meaning for the welfare of the almost six billion people who inhabit the earth is mixed - the poor may lose as much as they gain. But for human rights, international law, and protection of the environment, to name only three global concerns, there is no adequate substitute for a world body that attempts to devise and regulate procedures for the benefit of all. The UN is that body. It needs the support of all citizens who care about the global future.
Geoffrey Pearson
|
