Tuesday 24th of December 2024
Home » content

Radical Reforms proposed for the United Nations

Radical Reforms Proposed for the United Nations

While the US and alas other parts of the world are utterly distracted by the Sciavo case, major changes are afoot at the United Nations.

Kofi Annan has proposed the largest reforms to the organisation for over 60 years, and they are changes that, if accepted, will have significant ramifications for international relations, the global power balance, and how nations work (or don’t) together on issues such as international crises, human rights, military intervention, and global security. UN members will have a chance to vote on these changes in September this year, but in the meantime, expect negotiations and politicking to escalate dramatically, with so much at stake.

Keep reading to find out more.

Broadly, Annan has accepted a high level report requested by the UN, aimed at looking at what the organisation needs to do to achieve its Millennium goals. Annan has accepted most of this report’s recommendations. The report can be found here.

Annan has called for the restructuring of the UN around it’s three central tenets, under the auspices of three Councils: (a) international peace and security, (b) economic and social issues, and (c) human rights.

Two of these, of course already exist (the UN Security Council, the Economic and Social Council). The third, a Human Rights Council, has been suggested as a replacement for the increasingly discredited UN Human Rights Commission.

While on the face of it, the confirmation of the UN structure around three core councils may seem a relatively minor reform, the text of the report and Annan’s speech make it clear that what he is proposing is much more than a reaffirmation of structure with a minor change: no, what Annan’s proposal for three councils does, as outlined, is put the status of human rights and the UN economic and social agenda on the same footing as the Security Council. Further, Annan has proposed measures to significantly strengthen the UN organisation to increase its transparency, accountability, and ultimately its relevancy.

In a nutshell, Annan is moving to give the UN some teeth.

The details of the proposed reforms are as follows:

The expansion of the Security Council – naturally much of the world press & other attention will be focussed on this major reform. As Annan himself noted “This important issue has been discussed for too long.

Long Standing Changes

Don't be fooled into thinking that the changes that are being proposed are new. They have been mulled over and pushed for at least a decade now. The difference is that Annan is a leader that is willing to initiate reform within the organisation. He has already spent most of his time reforming the administrative side of the UN and streamlining the Secretariat. It is interesting that Albright is commenting but not surprising that she is supportive of the changes. Her and Clinton campaigned to get rid of Bhutros Ghali (who was a very shady character) and replace him with Coffi Annan.

As well as the predictable aspect there is of course the US under the Bush administration which has put the UN under a lot of preassure to prove it's own relevance (a fair task to be asked of any organisation). The reforms could be seen to serve that agenda and appease the US for now. Remember it isn't only a political thing. The US contributes far more than any nation and the measly budget that the UN have to work with (most large corporations have more to spend) would be unworkable without the US keeping up to date again (they did stop for a while).

Annan is very popular with the staff of the UN (often called the best Secretary General  in UN history) as well as the General Assembly members because efficiency and reform are his thing, he does it smoothly and successfuly whilst somehow satisfying the paradox that the UN has always struggled with.

Hi Elmark

Apologies for the delay in replying. Yep, I'm aware that many elements of these reforms have been on the table for sometime. I think the difference here is twofold: 1) a high-level working group has already taken these through a very robust process, which hopefully means that there is a fundamental baseline of support this time around; and 2) as you say, we have a leader in Annan - who some say is the best Secretary General  the United Nations has ever had - willing to push this, and push hard.

While I agree that the Bush administration has been doing everything in its power to sideline and bury the UN, I disagree that these reforms are in any way aimed at appeasing the USA - simply because most of them will curb the power of the US as the sole superpower. For eg, increasing the number of sitting members on the Security Council, defining the rules of war far more clearly with a specific aim of enunciating the process which a nation (& the UN) must show it has followed before taking pre-emptive action. Bush et al. don't want any of that.

Nor do they want to see, I suspect, a new Human Rights Council that by being effectively of the same status as the Security & Economic/Trade Council, will be in a much better position to comment on travesties such as Guantanamo Bay, and the Bush admnistration legalising the use of torture.

Indeed, you only have to look at who Bush appointed as the new US ambassador to the UN - who is, if anything a step down from Negroponte - to know Bush et al. are out to destroy the UN while they still have time. I think Annan's proposed reforms are a direct block to that effort. I also think their timing is excellent. Never has the USA been so distrusted and less useful & influential on the international stage. It's economic ties are weakened and it's dollar is precarious. There is more freedom than there has been in a very long time for nations to be able to resist US lobbying to reject these reforms - which is what I expect to see.

UN values are our values

Kofi Annan's intended reform of the UN looks great. I especially liked the Annex at the end - good summary.

I agree with Myriad that most states have an abyssmal record in human rights.

For what it's worth I think we can all contribute to a turn-around by making our organisations and ourselves more accountable to the values in our Vision and Mission statements and our agreed Codes of Conduct and whatnot. These 'ideals' are too often dismissed as meaningless motherhood statements but really they enunciate our common goals and what we all want to achieve.

Exciting

This is really exciting and hopeful news.

It is no secret that the United Nations is far from a perfect institution, and I have no illusions that Annan's reforms are going to make it so, but any strengthening of international, multipartisan political and legal institutions is a step away from the international lawlessness which exists today.

Yes it is Exciting

At the very least we will get to see the lie of the land in September when the Assembly votes on it - ie, just what (and who) are the obstacles to the various key elements of these reforms.

FYI to those reading. For reasons I can't fathom , part of my paragraph on Annan asking developed nations to contribute 0.7% of their GDP to aid; and the first part of my section on the Security Council expansion have ended up in a mashed up mess as the very bottom paragraph. Hope it's decipherable.

Let's fix it

Send me a copy, or just post it again as uncoded text, and I'll fix it.

Link to Interview with Madelaine Albright

Thanks. It looks a whole heap better.

If you go to the UN Dispatch (www.undispatch.com) they have an interview with Madelaine Albright, supporting both the reforms (although they are talked about only in the narrowest of terms, ie pre-emption) and also (hearteningly) supporting Annan, in the wake of the food for oil scandal.

Good to see an interview on CNN with an influential American foreign policy leader counter-balancing the prevailing Bush administration attempt to derail Annan, and almost certainly the UN as well.

I also note that the Australian UN Ambassador's overall positive response to the reform package, is, I hope & pray, not only a sign that the Howard government will help support this package, but that in doing so, will remove an important ally in the chamber for the USA, as Australia's alliance with the USA on Kyoto for instance has lent it much-needed legitimacy. Here's hoping that Howard won't be so stupid to shame us by siding with Bush this time.