The sluggish business of UN reform

One could expect the present UN General Assembly deliberations to generate more than passing interest worldwide, on account of the numerous contentious issues in international politics which are currently competing for the attention of the world.

What will make discussion and debate, both at the UN and outside it, particularly lively and deeply engrossing is the fluidity of developments in the world's 'trouble spots’ and the multiplicity of points of view which are being brought to bear on them from the world community.

This situation is a far cry from the Cold War years when the cleavages in international opinion on contemporary issues were comparatively clear-cut and somewhat hegemonistically controlled by the then prevalent power blocs, which relentlessly pitted themselves against each other for global supremacy, in the political, economic, military and cultural spheres. Comparatively, these are freer times and the observer could expect to find the clash of ideas on current questions among the political actors of the world, more thought-provoking and riveting.

However, the continued ‘heat’ rather than ‘light’ generated by international debate on issues such as the conflict in Syria and the painstakingly lingering Middle East conflict, ought to remind us of the extreme difficulties international opinion encounters in achieving, even a degree of consensuality on these issues. One could very well ask - how useful or effective a vehicle is the UN system in the task of international conflict resolution? If problems such as the Middle East question and the Korean issue are remaining with us, does not this prove that the UN is nothing less than a forum for directionless debate?

Right away it must be pronounced that mankind needs the UN. The lot of humanity could very well have been worse if the UN did not exist. True, the UN is not proving a complete answer to our more contentious political issues, but millions of people around the world would be facing the stark prospect of deprivation and death if not for the vibrant services rendered by the specialized agencies of the UN, such as, the FAO, WHO, and its High Commission for Refugees, to name just three such vital institutions.

Accordingly, the UN's glass could be said to be half full. this is no mean achievement, considering the very often recalcitrant nature of man. Nevertheless, some progress needs to be registered in efforts to put an end to the more wasting and bloody conflicts confronting us. In other words, concrete forward movement needs to be made in conflict-resolution and peace-making, if the presence of the UN is to be appreciated in more than a token manner.

The prime issue to be probed is why the UN is proving seemingly ineffective in meeting fully the challenge of peace-making. This question has been intermittently probed by the international community and answered quite sensibly, but those sections of world opinion which have thus come out with the right answers seem to be powerless and ineffective against those international political actors who want the present order of things to go on.

It should be plain to see that it is the powers that emerged predominant at the end of World War II which are continuing to have controlling influence over the all-important UN Security Council, although the global political, economic and military balance has over the past 30 years or so tilted in favour of other states and regions. For instance, India, Brazil and South Africa should be considered for membership of the UNSC, but there does not seem to be an immediate prospect of these states acquiring membership of the Security Council.

If they did come in for membership, the power balance within the UNSC would in all probability shift in favour of those international political actors who are seeking progressive change within the UN system. With the UNSC becoming more representative of all sections of world opinion, the chances are that progressive decisions on conflict-resolution would be rendered easier to arrive at. The result would be a degree of peace in the Middle East, for instance, because the West would not have it all their way within the UNSC. Accordingly, progressive opinion the world over needs to seize this moment. This segment of opinion needs to come together in an overwhelmingly powerful collectivity which would restructure the UN to meet the needs of the powerless.