UN at 60 under threat
 

BY NANDA Godage

THE UN was founded at the end of the Second World War to conduct international relations in an orderly manner. Its charter called for a coordinated approach to political, economic-social-cultural and humanitarian issues.

The UN was mandated to be the guardian of international peace and security and to tackle problems beyond the scope of individual states. It was intended to be an institution for all states creating a worldwide community and a global consciousness.

For us developing countries the UN provided a political platform where we could participate in the affairs of our world.

The UN whilst it brought many yellow' existing international agencies under its wing, created a number of new agencies such as the UNIDO,UNCTAD, UNICEF, UNHCR, FAO, UNDP, UNFPA. There is also the all important Economic and Social Council of the UN or the ECOSOC, the IAEA, WIPO and the WTO.

The above named agencies are all of greater importance to developing countries than to the developed since they are the channels through which developing countries pursuit their agendas at the multilateral level.

Over the years developing countries finding strength in numbers have banded together to further their interests jointly and also to reform the system.

With the end of the Cold War and the changed international scene, developing countries have begun to assert themselves more than before calling for institutional reform.

Developing countries have in the past been reacting to proposals from the developed countries but now they are themselves articulating their own proposals.

The strength of the developing countries derives from their numbers and the principle of one country one vote at the UN. Nevertheless the recent reform proposals particularly those emanating from the developed countries appear to be intended to weaken the developing countries.

The changes intended to strengthen the Security Council and its role would weaken the General Assembly. The restructuring of other UN bodies is also contemplated. The intention seems to be not towards universality but exclusivity.

This is being advanced in the name of 'efficiency' and on the grounds of making the organization more effective. The real intention appears to be to reduce the presence of the developing countries in the more important organs of the UN.

Dr. Ricardo Alacron De Quesada Speaker of the Cuban National Assembly speaking recently at the UNGA alleged that the reforms being promoted were intended to subjugate the UN and transform it into an instrument of the US and the West who fancy themselves as the owners of the world in order to establish a global dictatorship.

Dr. Quesada referred to the UN Millennium Declaration its eight objectives and eighteen goals set to be reached by 2015, and observed that nothing of significance has been done and that in certain areas, such as the reduction of poverty and hunger the situation has only got worse.

This bring us to another related issue and the work of Economic and Social Council or the ECOSOC, a body established by the Charter itself.

The ECOSOC has over the years been compelled to delegate its authority and responsibility to a number of agencies such as UNCTAD, UNIDO UNICEF and the UNEP, some of these specialized agencies have not delivered and the 'inefficiency' of these agencies is being blamed on the ECOSOC which had oversight responsibility; the critics seek to minimize and shrink the Council on the basis that they wish to make it more efficient but in effect their intention is to take control.

Another crucial area of the interest to us is the relationship between the UN and the multilateral financial institutions of which the developed countries are all members. Developing countries are today at the entire mercy of the IMF and the World Bank.

Any process of reform of the UN must include space for the UN not only to have an input into policy of these financial institutions but to also have a say in the restructuring of these institutions which are today controlled entirely by the US and the West.

If the stinking concept of 'conditionality' in the name of 'Structural adjustment' is to be applied, the developing countries who are at the receiving end of these 'conditionalities' must surely have some say in their content.

A commentator recently stated referring to institutional reform "Institutional changes can be used either to increase the power of wealth over people or the power of people over wealth"! how true. The US in particular seems to be hell bent on using the power of their wealth over the people of the poor developing countries.

On 29th September Dr. Garvin Karunaratne formerly of the Sri Lanka Administrative Service wrote a most interesting article titled "How the IMF ruined Sri Lanka". He refers to the lavish lending policies of the IMF calculated to make countries wholly indebted to make them pliable to foreign control and cites the example of Ecuador.

He refers to John Perkins who has recounted his experience in a fascinating book titled 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", a New York Times best seller.

Perkins in his fascinating personal story states how he was recruited by the US National Security Agency to implement policies that promoted the interest of US Corporations and of how the economy of Ecuador was subverted using the IMF. It is a compelling story of the corrupt system of subtle global domination.

Dr. Karunaratne also quotes Prof. Joseph Stiglitz former chief economist of the World Bank who has stated that "the mistakes of the IMF were sufficiently frequent that they clearly weren't just accidents ... they chose models that led to wrong predictions, wrong policies and had really negative consequences".

Dr. Karunaratne also quotes Professor Jeffrey Sachs who directly accuses the IMF for the disasters in African countries.

In his words "The IMF and the World Bank virtually ran the economic policies of the debt-ridden continent recommending regimens of belt tightening known technically as Structural Adjustment Programmes.

IMF led austerity programmes have frequently led to riots, coups and the collapse of public services." Dr. Karunaratne lays the blame almost entirely at the door of the IMF but it has to be conceded that it is bad, corrupt, inept governance that resulted in the IMF having to or being able to come in and lend on their terms.

I cannot conclude this essay on the UN at 60 without a reference to the crude manner in which one of the aspiring " owners of the world", the US has sought undermine the UN and bring it under its heel.

President Bush has sought to ambush the UN by deliberately sending an "undiplomatic bully" as its Ambassador to the UN in order to rid itself of an infernal nuisance within its own administration.

It shows the scorn that President Bush has reserved for the UN. This does not augur well for the UN or the developing world.

Two hurricanes have struck the US in recent months but they have only devastated the parts of the US but Hurricane Bolton certainly could as a perceptive local commentator Selvam Canagaratnam states would batter the global poor.

Bolton has submitted over 700 amendments to the 39 page draft of the Millennium Development Goals document or the MDG that diplomats had been painstakingly put together over the past 18 months.

The MDG was intended to reduce by half the proportion of people living on less than one dollar a day, achieve universal primary education, promote gender equality, stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, improve maternal health and address the loss of natural resources.

The rich countries made a commitment to spend 0.7% of their GDP as development aid to developing countries. Many countries are reported to have reached the target but it is claimed that the US spends a mere 0.16% of its GDP on development assistance. Bolton is reported to have in his letter to the 190 member of the UN stated that the US "does not accept global aid targets".

Bolton has called for greater focus on free market reforms which did not include encouraging Multi National Corporations to promote the public good; he has demanded the elimination of references to 'Corporate accountability'! Bolton has also attempted to wipe out all references to meeting any obligations outlined in the Kyoto Protocol.

Bolton has tried to eliminate the principle that the use of force should be considered as an instrument of last resort, he has sought to slash references to the International Criminal Court and for Nuclear powers to make greater progress towards dismantling their Nuclear weapons. It appears that the UN will be allowed to survive only if it agrees to become a tool of US Foreign Policy.

Let me put what Bolton is doing into perspective. The US is said to be spending over 90 billion USD conducting the war in Iraq, while the UN estimates (in its Development Report) that for less than half that amount we could provide clean water, adequate diets, sanitation services and basic education to every person on this planet!

This man does not represent the caring people, he is indeed an aberration doing much harm to the image of the United States around the world. Both Bs, Bush and Bolton, claim to be Christians, who hold up the Motto "We trust in God" but the God of Bush, Bolton and a man who calls himself a man of the Collar Pat Robertson cannot be the God of the Christians, they give offence to the religion they claim to practise which is concerned with the welfare of the weakest, whereas both Bush and Bolton are callously promoting the strongest through the exploitation of the poorest and the third is advocating murder. They seem to belong to a tight knit elite fraternity which seeks to dominate the world.

What is the answer or how should the world respond? I could think of one strategy (I am sure that there could be many more); India , China and Russia should take the initiative and along the Brazil and South Africa stand up to Bush and Bolton on behalf of the developing countries and the poor of our world.

It is relevant here to quote the words of the New York Times; in its editorial of 2nd August they wrote, "There is plenty to complain about the UN but real work happens there and it requires the services of men and women who know how to wring agreements out of a group of widely different and extremely self interested representatives.

The President has not just damaged goods to the UN but he has sent goods wholly inappropriate for the task at hand.

The UN could certainly be improved but Bolton is a very poor candidate for a reformer. To make the institution better the Bush administration would first have to show that it has a vision of what the UN should be.

That vision would have to begin by accepting the fact that nations other than the US have a right to have a say and sometimes take the lead". Yes there is still hope for the UN which was born when Bolton was only a toddler and Bush too; the UN will outlive them for they are not forever.

(The UN Association of Sri Lanka celebrated the 60th anniversary of the UN on October 22 at the BMICH).