David Capie: UN reform - time to take decisive action

Opinion

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the creation of the United Nations, which was designed the save the world from war.

In September, leaders from across the globe will gather in New York to celebrate the occasion. Whether it is a happy birthday, or the beginning of a gradual decline into irrelevance, depends on the willingness of the UN's 191 member states to embrace a programme of badly needed reforms.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan kickstarted the latest attempt at reform in New York last week when he outlined the recommendations of a 63-page report called In Larger Freedom.

This draws on the recommendations of a recent High Level Panel as well as the UN's 2000 Millennium Declaration Goals. Despite its awkward title, the Secretary-General's report lays out a sensible package of proposals, including the expansion of the Security Council, new rules on military intervention, a restructured Human Rights Commission, as well as ambitious goals for reducing poverty and spreading democracy.

Most of these reforms are sorely needed and long overdue. Take the membership of the Security Council. It is absurd that the UN's most powerful body reflects the power structure of the 1940s rather than the needs and geopolitical realities of the 21st century.

Japan makes the second-largest contribution to UN finances after the United States - more than the other four permanent members of the Security Council added together - but does not have a permanent voice in the council. India, Brazil and South Africa can also make good claims for seats based on the need for fairer regional representation.

In his report, Mr Annan does not endorse one solution but puts forward two options for expanding the Security Council from the present 15 to 24 nations.

One option would add six new permanent and three non-permanent members. An alternative is to create eight new members with four-year renewable terms, plus one additional non-permanent seat.

None of these new members would have a veto.

The plan is far from perfect. Neither option gives Asia adequate representation for its size and diversity. But both options are workable and represent pragmatic solutions to what has become an interminable debate within the UN. One needs to be chosen this year.

Another welcome reform concerns the lamentable UN Commission on Human Rights. The 53-member commission, based in Geneva, has become a laughing-stock. Its opaque system of regional bloc voting has seen some brutal regimes elected as members.

Last May, Sudan was elected to serve a three-year term at the same time that the UN was accusing Khartoum of overseeing genocide in Darfur.

Mr Annan's report rightly calls for the replacement of the commission with a smaller Human Rights Council, with its members to be elected directly by the General Assembly.

As well as proposing institutional restructuring, In Larger Freedom also addresses pressing security issues such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the use of military force in humanitarian interventions.

The report puts forward a consensus definition of terrorism for the first time and calls for a comprehensive convention to cut off all forms of support for terrorist groups. It calls on all states to accept the principle of the responsibility to protect.

That is, when governments fail to provide basic security and protection for their citizens, the international community has a responsibility to step in, using military force as a last resort.

The report also recognises the links between security and development. About half the countries that emerge from war fall back into conflict within five years. To break this cycle, Mr Annan proposes establishing a Peacebuilding Council to help countries make the transition to a stable and sustainable peace.

To fight poverty, rich countries are urged to give at least 0.7 per cent of their GDP in development assistance by 2015. (New Zealand, which currently gives less than 0.3 per cent, could lead by example here.)

Equally importantly, the report also calls for an end to all duties and quotas on exports from the least-developed nations.

Many of these ideas are not new, but they are still deserving of support.

Will the reform package pass? The main changes would have to be agreed by two-thirds of the UN's members as well as by the five veto-wielding permanent Security Council members: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States.

The signs are mixed. China is at best lukewarm about Japanese membership of the Security Council. Algeria and some other Arab nations have baulked at the definition of terrorism. Others oppose any kind of humanitarian interventions.

The temptation will be for states to cherrypick the proposals they like, and to block those they oppose. Mr Annan recognises this and has said it is essential that governments adopt the proposals as a comprehensive package. It will take all his skills as a statesman if he is to succeed.

Perhaps the best cause for optimism is a growing sense that this is a watershed year for the UN. The need for a fresh start has never been more urgent.

The world body's reputation has taken a pummelling since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Its relevance has been questioned and its integrity shaken by claims of corruption in the oil-for-food programme and allegations of sexual abuse by peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

If the UN is to be effective in dealing with the threats and challenges of the new century, world leaders must turn talk into action. As Mr Annan concluded last week: "We all know what the problems are, and we all know what we have promised to achieve. What is needed now is not more declarations or promises, but action to fulfil the promises already made."

However difficult it may be to achieve, the world needs a renewed, reformed UN.

* David Capie is a lecturer in international relations at Victoria University. He was commissioned by the UN Association in New York to write a brief for the High Level Panel.