1. Introduction
In this paper we intend
to examine the multifaceted challenges confronting the UN as a result of global
social change and how the UN has been responding to these challenges over time.
We also set out to identify the core areas where the UN needs to redress current
anxieties from different interests in order for its efforts to yield the
desired results. The paper therefore, opens with the identification of the
missing links in UN’s responses, as a background analysis to the challenges of
repositioning the UN for greater productivity and delivery.
2. The Missing Links in UN Efforts
The
UN has since inception in 1945, been beset by a number of problems. One of this
is constitutional inadequacies. Not only are some of its current activities not
directly provided for in the Charter, some provisions too, gives room for
double standard/multiple interpretations. For instance, the question of
peacekeeping, which has become one of the outstanding areas of the UN, was not
mentioned anywhere in the charter. The UN only takes cover under collective
security to undertake peacekeeping. The question of reprisal to acts of
terrorism too, has been a subject of serious controversy, leading to three
contending views. Yet, it has become a dominant feature of the international
system under the guise of self-defence.[1]
The ambiguities have usually created crisis of interpretation of
international law. For instance, in 1950, the action of the Security Council
that recommended the use of military force against North Korea was decided in
the absence of the Soviet representative, Mr. Maliki. This event generated
different interpretations, with each drawing support from Article 28 of the
charter.[2]
Related
to the above is the use and misuse of the power of Veto by the Security Council
permanent members. The permanent members of the Security Council have always
employed the power of Veto to champion their own interests. This was
particularly the case during the Cold War when the power became parts of the
war arsenal at the disposal of the two rival powers – USA and USSR. It however
couldn’t have been different because in practical terms, the formation of the
UN by the victorious allied powers was informed by the need to extend the
circumference of power politics.[3]
Armed with such power, the “controllers” of the UN effectively dictate
the tune and space of implementing decisions. This was the case in the failure
to implement the Agenda for peace as demonstrated by the case of Bosnia and
nullification of the 14-1 victory of Boutrous Ghali in the Security Council
election held over his second term bid.[4]
It is against this background that
scholars and commentators alike speak about the autocratic nature of the UN.
This is reflected in its concentration of power of Veto in five states, of
which some of them, France and Britain, for example, have lost their power base
of qualification in the first instance (colonies); and the exclusion of some
regions of the World particularly Africa and Latin America from membership of
the permanent seat of the Security Council.[5]
The
UN is also confronted with acute financial problem. In less than two decades of
its existence, precisely 1961, the UN was already in deep financial crisis. As
a perceptive commentator puts it:-
In recent years the
United Nations has been pursuing a precarious policy of financial brinkmanship.
The gap between total liabilities and cash on hand reached $111,700,000 by the
end of 1961. Three years later the UN had $8million in hand; no budget could be
formally adopted because the General Assembly had been rendered almost
imperative over the constitutional issues of the obligations of member states
to contribute an assessed share of the costs of peace keeping operations; and
several member states owed nearly $150million on their assessment for the 1963
and 1964 regular budget …..[6]
Several decades
afterward, the UN has not been able to rise over its financial predicaments
especially in terms of membership dues. For instance, by mid-summer of 1992,
the total cash reserves of the UN were $380million and UN monthly operating
costs were $310 million. At the same time, UN members owned $848 million to the
regular UN budget and $1.2billion for peacekeeping operations. Of all the
debtor nations, the US was the chief, with arrears of $517million. Of the 159
members of the UN then, only 67 had fully paid all their assessments.[7]
The
problem has been complicated by the phenomenon of corruption among the UN
personnel. No further evidence is as important here that the resolution 59/272
of the General Assembly of 23rd December 2004 requesting the secretary General
to submit annually to it a report on measures implemented aimed at
strengthening accountability in the Secretariat.[8]
In response to these challenges, the Secretary General revisited the existing
mechanisms of accountability and oversight and developed a set of measures
based on three main pillars, namely, accountability, transparency, and ethics.[9]
If
the UN must live up to the challenges of social change, it must be able to
thoroughly engage these critical issues in addition to several other important
developmental programmes.
3. Towards Repositioning the United
Nations
Quite a number of
important steps are pivotal to repositioning the UN for the challenges of
social change. This section of the paper explores some of these challenges:
(a) Effective Reform of the United Nations
Today, the United
Nations has existed for six decades. This period is definitely long enough for
a comprehensive self-assessment and reform agenda, where appropriate. It will
seem that this reality is fast dawning on the UN, following the series of
reform proposal emanating from the Organization. During the Secretary
Generalship of Boutrous Ghali (1992-96), these proposals for reform includes:
Agenda for peace; Agenda for Development; and Agenda for Democratization. While
these were implemented in part, the agenda for the democratization of the UN
was totally rebuffed by the Super Powers particularly the United States.
Today, the demand for
the reform of the UN has ever remains very potent. One particular area of
reform concern has to do with the Security Council. The argument is that the
Security Council as presently constituted, does not reflect the reality of
today’s world, but that of 1945 into which the Organization was born. For one,
it is said not to be representative enough especially in terms of distribution
of power of Veto. Two, African countries constitute more than one-third of the
UN and should therefore be accommodated on a permanent basis into the council.
It is also argued that some African states have been very active and up to date
in their UN obligations (peacekeeping operations, remission of dues regularly)
and are no new comers to the Council having served in a non-permanent basis.[10]
While this demand is
beginning to be appreciated by the UN, it has however not seen the light of the
day. Of importance however is the fact that the UN Secretary General has tabled
two proposals. The first (Options A) seeks to expand the composition of the
Council to 24 members. This will include six new permanent seats to be
distributed thus: two each for Africa and Asia while Europe and Latin America
will have one each. This is in addition to another three non-permanent seats,
which will bring the total membership to twenty-four. The second option (Option
B) seeks to expand only the non-permanent category by creating new rotational non-permanent
two-year seats, which will be divided among the continents of Africa, Asia,
Europe and Latin America, each having only two seats. This will give a total of
twenty-four seats for the Security Council.[11]
In response to this
development, affected regions have been striving to take good advantage of the
reform proposal. Africa, for example, has already opted for option A and
preparing to choose the countries that will occupy the two permanent seats.
While these reform measures are welcome, relief efforts should be made to
implement them as soon as possible. This will help to democratize the UN by
making it fairly representative of its components. A totally democratized UN
will certainly enhance credibility of the UN itself and give room for a balance
in the distribution of Veto power.
As a matter of urgency,
other capacity-building reform measures are desirable. Such measures include a
revision and review of the UN Charter to remove/amend all ambiguous provisions
that permit double standards. Reform should also be geared towards enhancing
the capacity of the UN to respond promptly and rapidly too, to threats to
international peace and security. This may call for the establishment of a UN
standing force that is well equipped, trained and funded so as to be able to
respond to crisis anytime and anywhere. It is on record that the genocide
committed in Rwanda could have been averted if the UN had responded rapidly
enough.[12]
The ongoing concern to tackle corruption in the Secretariat is crucial
and should be sustained through accountability, transparency and ethnical
values.
(b) Strengthening Democratic Values
It
is a welcome relief that through the effort of the United Nations and other
democratization forces, the democratization third-wave has swept across the
whole world. However, the challenges of democratic consolidation, that is the
entrenchment of democratic political culture and citizenship receptive to
democratic ideals and values, is a much more daunting task.[13]
It requires the strengthening of democratic ideals such that democracy can no
longer be truncated, eroded or reversed. In this regard, the UN has a major
role to play in preventing democratic erosion especially in transitional
democracies where democratic roots are still very shallow. This can be done in
the form of professional / technical assistance in the form of election
monitoring as well as financial assistance and assistance towards the Fight
Against Corruption and Poverty.
(c) External Debt Relief
One major factor that underscores the under-development of the Third
World and attendant poverty is the question of debt crisis. Most developing
countries groan under an excruciating debt burden that gulps scarce resources
in the form of debt servicing. In this regard, the UN should be able to be of
significant assistance. For one, most of the creditor nations and agencies (the
Paris and London clubs, World Bank, IMF) are the principal “owners” of the UN
that make things happen. The UN should therefore help to serve as a viable
platform for the negotiation of the debt relief to the highly and lowly
indebted nation. This will enable such countries to be able to use available
meager resources for developmental purpose.
(d) Redressing Global Inequality
The New World Order especially the
International Economic Order (NIEO) is largely skewed in favour of the
developed countries of Western Europe, North America and recently the South
East Asian tigers. This requires a very
fundamental restructuring to redress imbalance. The globalization phenomenon
has ensured the continuing marginalization of Third World Countries in world
trade and the flow of international capital. It is such that as at year 2000,
the developed economies of the world received 82.3 % of Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) inflow, where north America had 24.6% and Western Europe
55.8%. For the developing countries, they had a total of 15.9%, far less than
that of Western Europe and North America. The breakdown is as follow: Africa
0.6%, Asia and Pacific 9.0%.[14]
The situation has not changed in any significant way today.
Given the foregoing reality, it is
crucially important for the UN to device means of balancing the high level of
global inequality. One option is to encourage conscious transfer of resources
in areas where there are surpluses to the needy regions of Africa, Asia and
Latin America, in that order. It is also important to redress the roots of the
in-equality, which can be located in the nature of the international economic
system. There is need for a fundamental reform of the World Trade Organization
in a way that will ensure fairness and justice to all member states.[15]
4. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we concentrated on the
challenges of repositioning the UN so as to be able to cope effectively with
global rapid social change and associated challenges. Proceeding from
identifying the key problems confronting the UN to include legal constraints
epitomized by ambiguities inherent in some provisions of the UN Charter, allowing
for double standards, financial problem, the use and abuse of the power of veto
and corruption, the paper went ahead to identify the core challenges of
repositioning the UN. These include among others, the task of reforming the UN
to make it reflect the reality of today’s world. In this case, there is need
for a democratization of the UN, particularly the Security Council to make it
reflective of the composition of the UN. There is need to also address the
problems of corruption, legal constraints and so on.
Other salient issues central to
repositioning the UN include the necessity if debt relief to poor countries and
redressing global inequalities. These inequalities are manifested in the
lopsided nature of world trade, capital flow and income between the developed
and developing countries. This, the paper argues, calls for a deliberate policy
design to transfer resources from the region of surplus to those of deficit in
the world community.
[1] J Shola Omotola, “The US- Led Reprisals
on Afghanistan: Matters Arising”, ABSSS
Magnet, Vol. 8(1), 2000/2001, pp.9-10; “Cambating international terrorism;
Possibilities and Limitation,” Nigerian
Journal of international Affairs, vol. 29(122)
[2] See, Palmer and Perking, International Relations, Third revised
Edition, (Delhi: AITBS), 2004, p.381
[3] See, Hassan A. Salin, “Nigeria and the
UN: Failing New Realities,” Nigerian
Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 23(182), 1997, p.83
[4] See Boutrous Ghali, Unvanquished: A US –UN Saga,(New York: Random House),1998
[5] Boutrous Ghal, An Agenda for Democratization, (New York: The UN), 1996
[6] “Issues Before the Seventeenth General
Assembly”, International conciliation,
No 539(Sept. 1962), p.184, Quoted in Palmer and Perkins, Op. cit, p.382
[7] Boutrous Ghali, Unvanquished …….,Op. cit,
p.20
[8]
Resolution 59/272 of the General Assembly of 23rd December, 2004
[9] United Nations, Measures to strengthen Accountability at the United Nations, Report
of the Secretary General, (Washington, D.C: UN), 30 August, 2005
[10] See, Akinjide Osuntokun, “When service
Deserve its Rewards: Nigeria and the African seat on the Security Council,” in
A.B. Akinterinwa (ed) Nigeria and the UN
security Council, (Ibadan: Vantage Publishes),2005
[11] Ibid,
see also C. Nna-Emeka Okereke, “Nigeria and the permanent Membership of the
United Nations Security council: An Apprasal,” Nigerian Forum, Vol.26 (9-10), sept/oct., 2005, p.310
[12] See, Andreas Anderson, “Democracies and
UN peace keeping operations; 1990-1996”, International
peacekeeping, vol.7(2)2000,pp. 1-22; Patrick A. Mc Carthy,” Building a
Reliable Rapid –Reaction Capability for the United Nations,” International Peace Keeping,
Vol.7(2),2000, pp.139-154; and Robert S. Barret, “Understanding the Challenges
of African Democratization through Conflict Analysis,” Paper presented at the
international conference on Intergroup Relation in Nigeria in the 20th
century, Nasarawa State University, June 10-13, 2005
[13] For the challenges of consolidation see,
Larry Diamond, Developing Democracies:
Toward Consolidation, (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press), 1999;
and Robert Putnam, Making Democracy Work: Civic Transitions in Modern Italy,
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press),1993, among others
[14] See IMF
World Investment Report, 2002, Transitional Corporations and Export
Competitiveness
[15] See J. Shola Omotola and Kenneth Enejo, “Globalization,
World Trade Organisation and the Challenges of Development in Africa,” Mimco, Department of Political Science, Kogi
State University, Ayangba, Oct., 2004