Ian Williams is a journalist and U.N. Correspondent for The Nation and a weekly columnist for www.MaximsNews.com.   Order his great book from Amazon.com, Deserter: George Bush's War on Military Families, Veterans, and His Past.   Ian Williams is the past president of the United Nations Correspondents Association.  See his Bio.  See his columns listed below.   IanWilliams@MaximsNews.com 

Available at Local Bookstores or Order Now from Amazon.com        

             UNITED NATIONS -- 10  December 2004 / www.MaximsNews.com /  Allegedly a camel is a horse designed by a committee. 

Well the “High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change" that Kofi Annan asked to study how the UN copes with the threats of the new century was certainly a committee, and their report, “A More Secure World: our Shared Responsibility,” certainly has some aspects of a camel. 

I would guess it to be Bactrian from the two outstanding humps that have been added to get a consensus.

The Report panders to the nuclear lobby, spending undue time on proposals for keeping the nuclear genie inside the civilian bottle that is wishes to pass around so liberally. It advocates nuclear reactors as an environmental solution for global warming, when many people would rather not face the choice between boiling to death from rising temperatures and frying to death from radioactive waste – or weapons made from diverted fissile material.

The second hump is their suggestion that the Human Rights Commission simply be expanded to include all members, in  effect replacing the current outright sabotage from the dictatorial regimes who have packed the Commission, with implied ineffectiveness of a mass meeting.

Sadly, if they do not think the membership can keep the scofflaw infiltrators out of the Commission, it does not augur well for the panel’s expectations of the membership’s conversion to born-again ethical multilateralism, either in elections for the Security Council or in the implementation of the bulk of the report, which is a shame because, humps notwithstanding, the Report definitely has legs.

Most of the report’s proposals are pragmatically based in political reality. The Panel of the world’s great and good that delivered the report realized that there is more to reform than simply tinkering with organograms and flowcharts.

Although many people will focus on the more easily comprehensible sections, like who should be on the Security Council, the Panel concerned itself even more with the far more important question of just what the Council, and indeed, the General Assembly and Secretariat should be doing.

Indeed, much of the report is an appeal to member states to live up to the commitments they have already made, whether it be the proportion of their GDP’s they pledge to overseas development aid to the sums they devote to aids, and to the provisions of the Doha Round on the developing country access to Northern markets.  And of course to the mechanics of disarmament, which does not, of course, mean simply disarming countries that a Superpower may dislike.

Doubtless to the distress of the more imaginative international lawyers retained by the Bush and Blair administrations, the Report reiterates UN Charter Article 51, forbidding the use of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization.

More pragmatically, it considers that pre-emptive operations against imminent threats may well be necessary – but not if they are unilaterally conceived.  A US president should still have to persuade the rest of the world of the case. .

Similarly, it agrees with Tony Blair, and indeed may go further than him, in saying that humanitarian intervention is not only a good concept, but that it is already inherent in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Once again, it reaffirms that is not a right to be implemented by individual states but a collective right – indeed duty. In an implied rebuke to the US action in Iraq, it points out “Allowing one to so act is to allow all."

However, the proposals represent more than simple US-bashing. The Panel takes the global community to task for its tardiness in responding to Darfur, and for allowing recidivist human rights violators like Sudan to pack the Human Rights Commission.  It implicitly validates the message from Washington that democracy is a good thing and that it is the UN’s task to help spread it.

But once again, it does not contain the DC qualification, which implicitly measures the success of democracy by the extent to which it delivers friendly or subservient governments.

Even so, the report does indeed go a long way to address rational American concerns. It offers, for example, a reasonable working definition of terrorism for the first time, emphasizing violence against civilians, and rescuing the much abused term both from those who invoke freedom-fighter status to excuse atrocities and from those in Washington who use it a pejorative term for any dissent from their imperial project.

Equally welcome should be the panel's proposal for a peace-building commission tasked with monitoring and averting impending crises on all the aspects, economic, military and diplomatic that could lead to social and national breakdowns and drawing from the various bodies and agencies of the UN.

Apart from removing outright anachronisms such as the Trusteeship Council, or the Military Staff Joint Committee, which has met regularly and futilely for half a century in the basement of UN headquarters, and references to the former (1945 vintage) enemy powers, the Report leaves the UN Charter substantially intact.

This is wise. The Charter has been quite adaptable to changing circumstances, and most changes would not change the function, simply the symbolism.

It could not take such a robust attitude to the most mooted change of all, in composition of the Security Council, although, in fact that too is more to do with symbolism than effect. The Report accepts that if the Council is to wield such important powers of peace and war, it should be more representative of the changed state of the world since 1945.

So the report falls back into camel mode, with two alternative proposals, each adding another nine members to bring the Council to 24 members. Implicitly it either agrees with previously expressed American objections to any increase in size beyond that, possibly because the US would veto any further enlargement, and also because the US, is, on this occasion entirely right. The Council can no more function as a mass meeting than the Human Rights Commission.

The first proposal is for six new permanent members and three new temporary members, and the second for eight elected  “semi-permanent” members with four years tenure, and one new temporary member. Recognizing that it was politically impossible to remove the veto from the existing permanent members the Panel was sensible enough to realize that, regardless of any abstract questions of equity, adding six additional vetoes would condemn the council to perpetual indecision.

There are members, such as Brazil, Germany and South Africa, whose combined contributions are exactly such as fit them for a Security Council seat. However, those states not chosen will make it difficult to get the consensus necessary from the broader membership, let alone from the USA, whose warmth towards candidates is in inverse proportion to the degree of independence they showed in the run up to Iraq.

It is a shame that the most immediately graspable part of the proposals is, in reality, also the one most likely to stall the whole reform process as diplomats wrestle for the accolade of permanent membership of the Council.

In fact, the report calls attention to the existing, and all too often overlooked provision in Article 23 of the Charter that says that Council members should be chosen “due regard being specially paid, in the first instance, to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security.”

Presently most “elected” members of the Council are on a rota basis in the regional groups, regardless of qualifications. If the General Assembly paid more attention to Article 23 in selecting Council members, then there would be much less pressing need for institutional reforms.

So what chance do these reforms have? Not much if the full package has to await the Security Council reform, where jealous rivals of prospective permanent members may well filibuster indefinitely. In fact that comes to the nub of the problem with the Report. Almost, there would have to be an instant conversion of 191 heads of states to born-again  multilateralism on the banks of the East River.

But on the other hand a more gradual conversion may be possible, without the traumata and crisis of a Charter Change.

In many ways it would be better if well-intentioned members like Germany would use their undoubted qualifications for a permanent seat to lead other members towards implementing the most important part of the reforms, those that depend on states living up to their existing pledges and international obligations.

In particular, moving the European Union and its allies in the General Assembly to make that body a more effective one, more decisive with less grandstanding – and being able to resist bullying from some Council Members.  Certainly, the Assembly has more to do with attaining the Millennium Development Goals than the Council.

Additionally, with German pressure, the EU should put concerted pressure on the UK and France to behave like modern European representatives instead of anachronistic victors. Indeed they already show signs of the wobbly perch syndrome.

Both are often better UN members because they know their qualifications for a seat are questionable.

Sadly, the founder member that could do most to implement these reforms has an administration that defines “reform” and “relevance” as instant subservience to the current US policies and would be one of the last to convert, but even that may be feasible if others set a good example.

In fact, the sharp-eyed in Washington have already noted that if the Charter is changed, it will have to be re-ratified by the Senate. That is not something to be taken for granted. The US wielding a veto is one thing, but the successors of Jesse Helms doing so does not augur well.

Email Ian Williams:  IanWilliams@MaximsNews.com

           New: Argue/Agree with the Author.  Write a Letter to the Editor!!  www.MaximsNews.com/LetterstoEditor !!! 

Ian Williams' Weekly Columns in MaximsNews.com

    The Future of the U.N.  10 December 2004

   William Safire and Kofi Annan... 1 December 2004

Rice in State Department: World Cut Off...  17 November 2004 

Money Talks... 11 November 2004

Turkeys Voting For Christmas -- JOIN CANADA... 4 November 2004

KIM JONG IL Wants a Vote for the Incumbent Too!  28 October 2004

President Bush and the Three Little Pigs... 13 October 2004

When Hypocrisy Can Kill...  7 October 2004

Bush  - Still A Deserter Safire, still wrong...  15 September 2004

Bushowulf – the Saga   10 September 2004

Why Lebanon?...  9 September 2004

Ian Williams Welcomes Republicans to New York...  29 August 2004

What kind of Veteran?  Calley-type or Kerry-type?  25 August 2004

Chavez Beating about the Bush...  18 August 2004

The War Records of Bush and Kerry...  12 August 2004

Where is Osama Bin Laden?  6 August 2004

Sudan, To Intervene – or not to Intervene?  27 July 2004

Mr. Sharon, Tear Down This Wall!  16 July 2004

William Safire – Warped, on Speed, or Just Running Mad Again?  13 July 2004

Bosnian U.N. Defender Locked Up  7 July 2004

The U.N., the U.S. & the I.C.C.  30 June 2004

The New York Times, William Safire and the United Nations  23 June 2004

Hastily Contrived, Verbose, and Fudged: Security Council Resolution 1546  16 June 2004

Is the U.S. Clever Enough to Rule the World?  9 June 2004

Humor the Beast: the U.S. and the ICC  2 June 2004

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?  20 May 2004

The Solution to the Iraqi Knot  12 May 2004     

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please let us show you how we can announce events, send out your news and sell your books to over 10,000 at the United Nations and the International Community.