| |
| |
![]() |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan is presenting a proposal for sweeping changes within the UN to the 191-member General Assembly today.
The proposed reforms cover a range of issues from human rights and expansion of the Security Council, to calls for a comprehensive treaty against terrorism.
And what are some of the challenges in getting the majority of UN members to agree on the reforms, especially those that relate to security, and terrorism?
Melanie Yip put the question to Associate Professor Brian Farrell (BF), from the National University of Singapore’s Department of History.
BF: There is a big one. But it is so huge that it doesn’t matter whether there are any others. A profound disagreement between many different people and governments all over the world about the political status quo. Some feel that it is fine, some feel that it should only be changed after discussion incrementally, and organically. Others feel that it is unjust; it has to be tackled more directly, and robustly. And others feel that it is so outrageous that any means are justified to try and overturn it. So any attempt to bring about a universal agreement on terrorism codified in a treaty is going to run into this huge disagreement. Literally, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. And until that fundamental dispute can be bridged, until you can get 190 governments and their public opinions sitting around the same table and agreeing that the ends do not justify the means, that in certain circumstances, is not applicable. There are some conditions or actions where you can say, no, the ends never justify the means.
UN member states must pledge full compliance with non-proliferation treaties like reduce atomic arsenals, and uphold moratorium of nuclear testing. What impact will it have on issues like the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea, and also countries in the UN with vested interests, who supply nuclear weapons to these countries?
BF: As an example, the United Nations is still officially and legally in a state of war with North Korea, and that puts all member states under an obligation to support it in all its dealings with North Korea, and not to have any dealings with North Korea. Now, you tell me whether that obligation has been conscientiously abided by all the member states of the UN. The UN will only be able to enforce whatever rules its members wanted to enforce. They are the club, and this is just the mouth piece, it has no independent executive or authority. So in cases where a given government decides that its national interests conflict with its theoretical obligations of the UN, more often than not, in the last 60 years, it has done what it felt it had to do.
The report also recommends that the Security Council sets clear principles on the use of military option proportionate to the threat at hand? How difficult will it be to enforce such guidelines, because the Iraq war caused a great divide among Security Council members when the United States decided to go to war unilaterally?
BF: That one’s never going to fly. None of the Security Council permanent members are ever going to want their hands to be tied to that extent. They are all going to argue that the language that already exists in the charter provides adequate protection, justifications and circumscription to the use of military force. And frankly, I think they have a point because there are already detailed international agreements, most of them upheld by the UN, some of them brought about through the UN, which clearly circumscribed the conditions under which force can be used. Simply coming up with another legal agreement isn’t going to do this, this is aimed at preventing another unilateral military intervention by a major power against the wishes of the UN. The next time that comes up, they’re going to do it anyway. France intervened in Ivory Coast, and the rest of the world barely cared. This is aimed at American use of force, and none of the other great powers are going to go along with it in the end because they realize it will tie their hands.
Mr Annan has also backed the idea to expand the Security Council from the current 15 members, to 24 members? What problems would it pose when Security Council members encounter a deadlock on issues, and cause a clear divide between Eastern and Western blocs like the old Soviet Union?
BF: No, I don’t know if the blocs will be that clear cut, I don’t know whether they are going to be divided along geographical lines, or North, South East economic lines, or lines of the circumstance of the moment. But I do know that on any important issue where war or peace is at stake, if the interests of one of the key great powers of veto are involved, they would prevent the Security Council from doing anything or doing it on their own. And no amount of adding chairs to the table is going to change that. - RSI
|
