DOES THE U.N. HAVE A FUTURE?
Ronald J. Glossop, First Unitarian Church of Alton, Illinois, 24 October 2004
I. Introduction.
A. As we have noted in our responsive reading for today, one of the seven "Purposes and Purposes of the Unitarian-Universalist Association" is "the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all."
B. In connection with this goal, the UUA has supported the United Nations since its creation in 1945. We even have a UU-UN Office very near UN headquarters in New York. Blue brochures about the work of that UN office are inserted in your bulletin. I hope that many of you will become supporting members of our UU-UN Office.
C. The U.N. has faced several crises during its 59 years of existence, but in the past two years the issue of its continuing existence is being raised. Can the UN even continue to exist if it is not transformed in a major way? U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has noted that "radical reform" of the organization is necessary. He has called on member governments to address this issue; a year ago he appointed a high-level panel to study global security threates and to make recommendations on how to deal with them on a collective (rather than unilateral) basis. That report should soon be released.
D. That call for reform was in response to what had taken place with regard to Iraq when the United States decided to launch military action against that country despite failure to get another UN Security Council resolution to support such action. President Bush indicated that by failing to support the US effort, the UN was in danger of becoming irrelevant in world affairs. Action against the government of Saddam Hussein was needed, and if the UN wouldn't do it, the U.S. itself would act with the assistance of whatever other countries were willing to help. The U.S. knows what is best for the world and is going to do it with or without the approval of the UN Security Council.
E. Kofi Annan is sensitive to the U.S. claim that it had to act unilaterally because nothing was being done collectively to address the threat posed by terrorists and tyrants.
F. Unfortunately, no one even raised the question of another way of using the UN to deal with Saddam Hussein, namely, the very approach that had been successful in dealing with Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. Just as in 1993 the UN Security Council had voted to create a special tribunal to investigate war crimes and acts of genocide in the former Yugoslavia, a similar tribunal could have been established by the U.N. Security Council to investigate war crimes and acts of genocide during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1970s. Of course, the U.S. could not be expected to support creation of such a tribunal because of the danger that the investigation of such crimes would lead to high-ranking officials in the U.S. government who helped Saddam acquire the poison gas he used.
G. The current crisis about the UN's continuing existence is basically a matter of the relation between the United Nations and the government of the United States. Is the UN going to be able to act collectively against the kinds of threats to security which so concern the U.S., or will the UN be forced reluctantly to admit that unilateral pre-emptive action by a nation-state is the only feasible way to deal with such threats?
II. Because of lack of news coverage of such matters, most people in this country don't realize how subservient the UN has been to the U.S. or how weak the UN has been kept.
A. One indication of how dominant the influence of the U.S. at the UN has been is the history of Chinese representation at the UN. The Communists under Mao Zedong took over mainland China in October 1949, but that government was not permitted to appoint the Chinese representatives at the UN until October 1971, 22 years later, at a time when President Nixon was trying to open the door to better U.S. relations with China. Even then the U.S. tried but failed to defeat the resolution allowing the Chinese Communist government on the mainland to appoint China's representatives at the U.N.
B. Another indication of the dominance of the U.S. at the U.N. occurred in 1996 when the first 5-year term of Boutros Boutros-Ghali was coming to an end. There were 185 countries in the U.N. at that time, and 184 of them wanted Boutros-Ghali to have a second term, just as other Secretary-Generals had had. But the U.S. was determined to keep him from having a second term, partly because he had suggested in a speech that the UN should have its own independent source of income to sustain the organization when countries such as the U.S. didn't pay their dues. Eventually Kofi Annan became the new Secretary General because the U.S. wanted him to replace Boutros-Ghali and twisted arms of other national governments (especially France) until that happened.
C. Boutros-Ghali aroused U.S. animosity because he was striking at the very core of U.S. policy toward the UN, that is, keeping the UN weak by keeping it poor. The media and opponents of the UN have well publicized the fact that until recently the U.S. was paying one-fourth of the expenses of the UN. It now pays only 22 percent. But what is not so well publicized is that the U.S. economy represents 27 percent of the world's total. On that basis a fair proportion of the UN budget for the U.S. would seem to be 27 percent rather than 22 percent.
D. Furthermore, the total annual regular budget for the UN has been gradually reduced in recent years and now is only 1.2 billion dollars. The budget of the whole U.N. system, which includes about 25 international organizations such as the Food and Agriculture Organization, the International Atomic Energy Agency, UNESCO, the International Labor Organization, the UN Environmental Program, the Universal Postal Union, the World Health Organization, and so on, is about $12 billion a year, considerably less than the budget of the state of Missouri.
E. The only source of funds for the UN is the contributions it receives from national governments, and the UN is not allowed to borrow from any outside sources. Many countries are regularly late in paying their dues, with the result that the UN has to borrow from its own peacekeeping funds rather than paying national governments what is owed for their UN peacekeeping. Debts for the UN's regular budget amount to $693 million from 78 countries while the arrears for peacekeeping total $1.56 billion.
F. A year ago the U.S. had substantially reduced its debt to the U.N. but still owes $480 million and now is falling farther behind again. Part of the motivation for getting somewhat paid up seems to have been that when the U.S. wanted the UN to do something (like going into Iraq), it didn't want its debt to be used as a rationale for the UN not responding. Also, Boutros-Ghali's call for an independent source of income has aroused thought about that possibility if the financial situation gets too desperate.
G. The U.S. has also been successful in stopping any increases in the U.N. budget, even to take account of inflation. Since the UN is so financially dependent on the U.S., it has no way of counter-acting any U.S. threats to cut financial support.
H. One time when U.S. influence at the UN was temporarily overcome was in 1975 when Arab oil money was being used to nullify U.S. economic support for some governments. The result was passage of the "Zionism is racism" resolution by the UN General Assembly, but that resolution was repealed in December 1991.
I. The members of the U.N. have learned that one way of getting past U.S. opposition is to use the UN General Assembly to set up conferences which initiate new treaties. 1. This strategy was used between 1973 and 1998 to establish a new international regime to manage ocean seabed resources through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Institutions established by that treaty finally came into existence in 1998 despite U.S. refusal to ratify it. The U.S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee recently voted unanimously to send the ocean treaty to the full Senate for ratification, but it is being held up by Senator Frist in order to placate his right-wing supporters.
2. This strategy of starting with a conference called by the General Assembly was used again in 1998 when a conference in Rome adopted the Rome Statute for a permanent International Criminal Court to deal with individuals who commit war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. That tribunal began functioning last year despite concerted U.S. opposition to it, opposition which includes black-mailing countries that refuse to sign bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs) with the U.S.
3. With both the seabed institutions and the International Criminal Court having come into existence despite U.S. opposition, I expect that this strategy of working through treaties formulated at conferences set up by the UN General Assembly is going to be meeting more determined opposition from the U.S. in the future. On the other hand, the U.S. does not have a veto in the General Assembly, so it may find it difficult to prevent use of that strategy by the other UN members.
III. So what is going to happen at the UN? Will there be some reforms as called for by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan? Will the UN survive without reforms?
A. One reform which has been discussed for some time and which Annan has supported is increasing the size of the UN Security Council. It now consists of five permanent members--the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, and China (the 5 big powers who won World War II)--and 10 other countries elected for 2-year terms by the General Assembly on the basis of geographical representation. This means that other major powers such as Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil are often not on the SC, even though Japan is the 2nd largest contributor and Germany is 3rd. India has the second largest population in the world, and Brazil would give Latin America a representative.
B. But changes will not be easy. Could there be some permanent members who do not have a veto even though the present permanent members do? If so, why should some big powers have a veto while others do not? Should Europe have three permanent members on the Security Council while Africa has none? Is there any way that the countries with a veto (and especially the U.S.) would ever give it up?
C. It seems that some change in the Security Council is possible, but only minor changes acceptable to the U.S. are likely. Perhaps the SC could be enlarged from 15 to 19 countries by giving Japan, India, and Brazil permanent membership on the Security Council but without a veto while another seat would be assigned to South Africa and Nigeria on an alternating basis. This change would require amending the UN Charter.
D. Another area of reform suggested by Annan is some kind of provision allowing for international intervention in cases where some government allows terrorists to use its territory for training. The aim here is to try to eliminate the rationale for pre-emptive military action by the U.S. or other countries. I do not see how such a provision could be introduced without changing the UN Charter, something which the U.S would stop.
E. The other things Annan mentioned last year--more peacekeeping forces from industrialized countries, more readiness to assist in responding to crises such as are occurring in Africa, and giving less developed countries more input in UN decision-making--are not new suggestions, and it is not likely that these ideas are going to be implemented now any more than they were in the past.
F. Annan's speech to the UN General Assembly last month emphasized the need for the rule of law in the world. He noted that enhancing the rule of law (sometimes in areas opposed by the U.S. such as the law of the seas) has been one of the UN's greatest achievements. Then in words that can be viewed as directed to the U.S. with regard to the situation in Iraq, he said, "Those who seek to bestow legimimacy must themselves embody it; and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it."
G. Despite these various valuable ideas being advanced by Kofi Annan over the past two years, I doubt that much change will occur at the UN in the near future, especially if the present administration is returned to power in the U.S.
IV. The U.S. has presented its views on how the U.N. should be reformed in an October 21, 2003 speech by Kim R. Holmes, Assistant Secretary for International Organization Affairs, to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington DC. There is nothing new or unexpected in this speech.
A. Mr. Holmes noted that being a member of the UN carries with it the responsibility to aid in addressing global dangers such as terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, so all member nations should get busy on these tasks. Of course, this view completely overlooks U.S. non-cooperation as displayed by its announced intention to continue developing new nuclear weapons, its refusal to ratify the treaty to stop the testing of nuclear weapons, its refusal to ratify the treaty to outlaw the production and use of landmines, and its opposition to the treaty to support the creation of the International Criminal Court, a court which could be used to deter terrorists by making them subject to prosecution. Furthermore, there is no effort here to answer the charge that the U.S itself is guilty of illegal aggression in Iraq and continues to say nothing about the nuclear weapons possessed by Israel.
B. Mr. Holmes said that membership on the Security Council should be based on accountability, which means that a country like Japan which pays so much of the UN budget should always have a seat on the Council and that democratic countries should be given priority in being elected to serve on the Council. Accountability also means that the UN General Assembly would have more moral authority if more national governments in it were democratic, that countries which contribute more financially should be given more say in determining policies, and that there should be less piling up of resolutions critical of Israel. In other words, countries which support the U.S. viewpoint such as Japan and India should have more influence at the UN.
C. Mr. Holmes indicated that the UN should be made more effective by cutting down on the size of the Economic and Social Council and decreasing the maze of committees and conferences, because a big problem for the UN is the bloated bureaucracy.
D. Mr. Holmes said that the UN needs to do better at spending its money carefully, which means being more ready to close down agencies which are not performing well. It needs to be more responsible and not make mistakes such as electing Libya to chair the Commission on Human Rights. The UN needs to do more in the way of promoting freedom, economic liberalization, and the rule of law. Thus the needed reforms are in the area of implementing U.S. views and practices within the everyday operations of the UN. Kofi Annan is aware of these standard criticisms of the UN by the U.S. and has been taking various actions to try to deal with them.
E. Mr. Holmes noted that a caucus of the democracies at the UN could be helpful. This notion of getting the democracies to work together at the UN is one that is being promoted by Congress as well as by the administration, though it remains to be seen how much attention it gets even if adopted.
V. In fact, any momentary concern for reform of the UN has been lessened considerably by the fact that last year the U.S. managed to get unanimous support in the Security Council for Resolution 1511 to help Iraqis rebuild their country. The U.S. supposes now that it can continue as usual, doing its own thing and getting UN support for it, either before or afterwards. At the same time, the tough going in Iraq seems to have tempered U.S. arrogance that it can or should totally disregard the views of other countries. This situation sets the ground for a return to business as usual at the UN.
A. Felicity Barringer in the New York Times of September 19, 2003 provided a good overview of what "business as usual at the UN" means. She wrote, "Europeans today view the UN as the embodiment of international law and world order. The U.S. seems to view it as a tool to be used when handy. Africans and Asians tend to have more case-specific uses for UN diplomacy and its general advocacy for the poor and disadvantaged who are not much in the minds of rich nations."
B. These views about the proper role of the UN are paralleled by different views about the new International Criminal Court. The Europeans (along with Canada and Australia) are enthusiastic supporters of the ICC as an important institution for advancing the rule of law in the world community. The U.S., led by the State Department's anti-internationalist John Bolton and focused only on U.S. concerns, disdains the ICC as something totally unneeded and threatening to unlimited U.S. national sovereignty. Africans and Asians are interested in how the ICC might be applied to their own particular problems.
VI. The present apparent lack of interest in reforms at the UN does not mean that no reforms are needed.
A. One fairly modest proposal, incorporated in HR1414 which has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, calls for the creation of an individually recruited UN Police Corps which could go into places like Afghanistan and Iraq to do police work until a local police force could be established. Such a force would be very different from those employed in traditional UN Peacekeeping missions, because those forces are actually the military forces of some national government which is fulfilling a peacekeeping contract with the UN. This civil-service type UN Police Corps could even help to train members of the new police force which would replace it. As sensible as this idea is, it is sure to be resisted by those who do not want the UN to have any security forces of its own, even a lightly armed police force.
B. One obvious need at the UN is for financial resources. A wonderful mechanism, called the Tobin Tax, a very small tax on profits made on short-term currency exchanges, could provide the UN with a substantial income as well as helping national governments to protect their national currencies from the kind of speculation which can undermine them. But the more influential countries are not going to approve anything so revolutionary and empowering, especially before there is a better system of decision-making at the UN to set policy on how the more abundant funds get spent.
C. One way of getting a better system of decision-making at the UN would be to revise the voting system in the UN General Assembly. At present each member country gets one vote, regardless of how large or small it is. This means that a group of very small, poor, powerless countries with small populations can pass measures which are adamantly opposed by richer, more powerful, more populous countries. Because of that ridiculous voting system, no one wants to give the General Assembly any real authority. But the voting system could be revised so that more populous, economically powerful countries would have more of a say in the outcome. Then the General Assembly could be given some real decision-making authority.
1. One proposal which should be considered is that worked out by Professor Joseph Schwartzberg of the University of Minnesota in his monograph REVITALIZING THE UNITED NATIONS: REFORM THROUGH WEIGHTED VOTING (New York: Institute for Global Policy and The Hague: World Federalist Movement, 2004). His proposal involves calculating a weighted vote for each country by averaging three percentages: its percentage of the world's population, its percentage of the UN budget, and its percentage of the total number of countries in the UN (which would be the same for every country, now 1 out of 191 or 0.52 percent). This would produce an average percentage for each county which would constitute its weighted vote. For example, the U.S. has 4.55 percent of the world's population, 22 percent of the UN budget, and 0.52 percent of the countries of the world. Averaging these three percentages would give 9.02 as the weighted vote for the U.S. Starting with the highest weighted vote and going down the list the vote for China would be 7.96, for Japan 7.73, for India 5.80, for Germany 3.91, for France 2.68, for Italy 2.31, for Britain 2.20, for Brazil 1.60, for Russia 1.34, for Canada and Spain 1.26, for Mexico 1.06. For all other countries, it would be less than 1.00, the next highest being Nigeria with .87. Although Professor Schwartzberg shows how this weighted voting system could be applied in the Security Council as well as the General Assembly, I think that it especially appropraite for the Assembly where it could replace the present system where each country gets the same one vote regardless of its population or economic status. Then votes in the General Assembly would take on much more moral import than they presently have. In fact, with such a revised way of counting votes, it might even be possible to give the General Assembly some real law-making capability. It could supplement treaty-making, providing a new way of making international or world law.
2. Needless to say, such a revision to make decision-making in the UN somewhat more democratic would probably be opposed by the more powerful countries, including especially the U.S. Nevertheless that is the kind of reform in the UN that would allow it to address real problems in a new way.
IV. Does the UN have a future?
A. I would say that it does, but that its role is not likely to be much different from what it has been in the past. That means that the UN will continue to be an association of national governments led by and dominated by the U.S.
B. As long as the U.S. government does not adopt a very different attitude from what it now has, there are not likely to be any big changes in the UN. On the other hand, if there were a U.S. administration interested in making the UN more democratic, in sharing decision-making power with other countries, changes could come quickly. In other words, the UN is likely to be, as it generally has been from its inception, essentially what the U.S. government wants it to be.
C. Consequently, the outcome of the November 2 U.S. election will be very important in determining not only what kind of national community we will have but also what kind of world community we will have.