Reassessing the UN

Sri Lanka's relations with the UN have endured for 50 long years and this is a moment of rejoicing as well as an epochal one. Like the majority of states in the world system, Sri Lanka has considered it important to be a part of the UN family and the continuous aid and assistance rendered to this country by the UN in particularly the socio-economic field, points to the soundness of our policy of keeping our relations with the UN ticking.

Sri Lanka is, of course, not alone in the enjoyment of such beneficial ties with the UN. The majority of Third World states too have found it advantageous to be in the UN fold and the fact that the UN system is enduring bravely is proof that the world organisation has not outlived its usefulness.

This is in marked contrast to the League of Nations, which arose out of the ashes of the First World War. The fact that the League of Nations collapsed before long is proof that - unlike the UN - it did not prove effective in meeting the crucial needs of the post-World War I global order.

Still, the disquieting questions remain. How effective has the UN itself proved in meeting the more compelling needs of the post-World War II order ? These needs are predominantly of a security nature.

In purely theoretical terms, the UN embodies the spirit of global unity and its authority is expected to go unquestioned. All member states of the UN are expected to submit to its rulings and pronouncements on issues which impact gravely on global security and the deliberations of the UN General Assembly in particular are said to be informed by the collective wisdom of the peoples of the world.

Yet, in practice, these theoretical tenets have, on many an occasion, been flagrantly violated by the most powerful states of the world in particular. The UN has on quite a few occasions been made to look helpless by these principal global powers. They have had their own way, UN rulings and pronouncements notwithstanding. Worse still, the highest organs of the UN are being seen by some as being subservient to these big powers.

The question that now arises is: where do we go from here? Should the UN allow itself to be bypassed by these powers or should it not reform itself to cope with these convulsions?

To be sure, the UN under the present Secretary General, Kofi Annan, has already given considerable thought to these issues. It is quite some time since it was clearly seen that what is most lacking in the UN system is a substantial power to enforce its consensual decisions, particularly with regard to law and order questions. It is the perception that that it suffers from this deficiency, coupled with the impression that it is slow - footed in the face of security crises, which have compelled some big powers to take the law into their own hands.

The UN is, no doubt, deeply committed to peace keeping operations around the world but it is an open question whether UN peace keepers have kept the peace effectively.

Fortunately, for the world, the UN is doing some earnest re-thinking on these and many more questions which are central to the effective functioning of the UN system. Recently, for example, a report by a 'High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Changes', facing the UN, was issued on the request of the UN Secretary General.

Titled, 'A more secure world: Our shared responsibility', this report sets out not only the more pressing problems facing the UN but outlines some possible reforms to the system. We urge the implementation of these reforms because, come what may, the world still needs the UN.