UN Reform

A statement by the Global Policy Forum http://www.globalpolicy.org/

*For a more detailed analysis on the challenges of an effective UN reform: Global Policy Reform

The UN needs reform. On that everyone agrees. But there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose. Again and again over the years, the UN has been reformed – on average once every eight years. But the pace has now quickened and reform projects seem almost a constant part of the landscape. Foundations, think tanks and blue ribbon commissions regularly call for institutional renovation at the UN. Secretary Generals frequently re-organize departments and set up new coordinating committees. NGOs gather to press their reform causes. Diplomats negotiate. And from Washington come somber warnings that the UN must “reform or die.”

But after the fireworks, the same problems regularly persist – because the shortcomings of the UN are primarily rooted in the dysfunctional global order and the conflict-prone state system, not in the UN’s institutional arrangements. Few reformers are willing to admit that the UN’s complex and inefficient machinery results from deep political disagreements among its members and between other contending forces in the global system. Yet the United States, military superpower and transnational corporate headquarters, clearly wants a weak UN with an impossibly small budget and scarcely any voice in economic matters. Many other nations, to the contrary, want a stronger UN and more effective multilateral policy making. Whose “reform” is to prevail? And how will any newly-devised UN institutions be paid for?

The Millennium+5 reforms, proposed by the Secretary General in March 2005, were neither ambitious nor far-reaching. Designed to please (or at least not to displease) the superpower, they substantially ignored the most urgent issues – the UN’s financial woes, the unilateralism of the superpower, the absence of real disarmament, and the shaky and unjust global economic order. For a time, it seemed that these modest if flawed reforms might nevertheless be adopted. But as the summit approached, negotiations faltered, due largely to last-minute, far-reaching demands from Washington. In the end, the world leaders approved an embarrassingly weak document, filled mostly with empty platitudes. It remains to be seen how the UN will weather this contentious and divisive reform process, and what avenues remain open for a stronger and more effective multilateral system.

* * * * *

Some Thoughts on the United Nations in Transition

All forms must adapt and grow in order to realize their objectives within a constantly changing world. Indeed, we are living in a time of rapid crystallization that demands a constant review process if any organization or group hopes to keep pace with the evolutionary thrust that is upon us. Too often the noble ideals and vitality of the original impulse behind any form become lost if the connection to the heart, the life that substands the outer form, is severed or if its channels of circulation become clogged in the difficult process of translating the ideal into the physical plane reality. The U.N. is by no means immune from this syndrome and it needs the sustained subjective support of all men and women of goodwill if it is to move forward successfully through the present transition period.

The U.N.’s Charter begins with the words “We the peoples” and through a reflection upon the intention underlying these simple words, an important component to U.N. reform and redirection could begin to take shape within our minds. Perhaps we need to find a way for the nations of the world to cede authority to a body that would be more representative of the needs and will of the people--a type of inner council, composed of an international group of men and women from all fields and interests, who would be chosen for their wisdom, their intelligence and their creativity.  Such an ideal could not be realized within the present structures of the U.N. which is, after all, an organization composed of nations.  But, as mentioned, we are rapidly moving into a new age in which new dynamics are needed, a time when many people are recognizing that they are indeed global, or planetary citizens and their allegiance is to the good of the whole in the firm recognition that this will ultimately work out in the good of the part.   The old paradigm of the individual nation state, invoking its right to unilateral action, must cede to the higher authority as embodied in the ideals of the U.N. charter so that we the peoples and the nations of the world can step beyond the present impasse and into the freedom conferred by the collective will of the people.

 The Alice Bailey books put forward the idea that we are approaching the time when there will occur a vast restructuring of the entire worldwide economic order through the intervention of a group of highly evolved individuals who will come forward along the financial line. It is said that they will bring about a situation in which all of the world’s resources will be administered by an international group that will oversee their rightful distribution.  There are many groups today, under the impulse of the movement for sustainable development, advocating vast and sweeping changes for the world community and certainly the future will see the realization of their vision and their goals. U.N. membership should be viewed as a privilege, not a right. In order for the nations of the world to retain that privilege they should have to demonstrate their willingness to adhere to the edicts of international law.