Do we need the United Nations Organisation at all? The UNO was established 60 years ago and by now should have undergone fundamental reforms. But the reforms are failing to go thru, because there is a lack of unity among the nations – and especially there is the ignorance from its most powerful member-state, the USA. But don´t we need an international political instrument against injustice and a counterbalance against economic globalisation?
Histororically, the career of the UN can´t be seen as a straight success-story. Certainly there have also been successes – as during the Cuba-crisis of 1962, when secretary general U Thang prevented the outbreak of an atomic third world war. But often enough, single nations have ignored UN-resolutions. As we all know, in 2003, the United States of America disregarded the UN-decisions and attacked Iraq. Isn´t this a step back undermining the development following 1945?
The USA has always cultivated a love-hate-relationship towards the UN. Inspired by the ideas of the enlightenment era, US-president Woodrow Wilson was probably the keenest founder of the League of Nations in 1919/20. Nevertheless, the USA as a nation never participated in the League ..Although since the foundation of the UN in San Francisco 1945 the UN-headquarters had been located in New York, the love-hate-relationship continued. In the 1980s, President Reagan made sure that the USA left the UNESCO and that fees were not paid completely (one has to admit that the US paid a large share of the UN-household. But if not the most affluent nations – who else should finance supranational politics: Ethiopia or Cambodia?).And the current US-ambassador in the UN, John Bolton, is not more than a bad joke: aid for developing countries, fair trade conditions for the "Third World", protection of the environment, an international criminal court? Not with us!
The hopes of the decolonised countries that had encouraged them to make the UN an arena for their fight for a new (economic) world order in the 1970s were not fulfilled. Now it seems that unilateralism has gained acceptance and that the ideas of the UN – multilateralism and democratic relationships among the nations – have faded away.
So, is there any chance to reform the UN in such a way that it might become a democratic institution with a just balance of power among its member-states? The reform of the Security Council could be a beginning. Just as the League of Nations had been dominated by the winning nations of world war I, the UN is dominated by the winning coalition of world war II. The allies USA, Soviet Union,France and Britain united with China (until 1971 Taiwan)–to become the only permanent members of the Security Council.Today it is the object of the most controversial debates. I think, India should be a permanent member – the voices of 1 billion people must not be ignored by this institution. In the case of Germany, I´m not so sure. Why should there be a third European state? (It would be better to have just one permanent seat for the European Union). And what about Brazil, Japan – and when will the African States take a stronger position in world politics?
Also since the brave ideas of Kofi Annan has not became a reality now (he did not get the support of the USA, because he dared to criticise the war in Iraq) one starts raising these questions.Is there any hope for the UN? And what should be done?
Christian lives in Bohn,Germany and can be contacted at christiansitar@gmail.com
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Guest Article/Is There Any Hope For The U.N?
By Christian Hofmann
Do we need the United Nations Organisation at all? The UNO was established 60 years ago and by now should have undergone fundamental reforms. But the reforms are failing to go thru, because there is a lack of unity among the nations – and especially there is the ignorance from its most powerful member-state, the USA. But don´t we need an international political instrument against injustice and a counterbalance against economic globalisation?
Histororically, the career of the UN can´t be seen as a straight success-story. Certainly there have also been successes – as during the Cuba-crisis of 1962, when secretary general U Thang prevented the outbreak of an atomic third world war. But often enough, single nations have ignored UN-resolutions. As we all know, in 2003, the United States of America disregarded the UN-decisions and attacked Iraq. Isn´t this a step back undermining the development following 1945?
The USA has always cultivated a love-hate-relationship towards the UN. Inspired by the ideas of the enlightenment era, US-president Woodrow Wilson was probably the keenest founder of the League of Nations in 1919/20. Nevertheless, the USA as a nation never participated in the League ..Although since the foundation of the UN in San Francisco 1945 the UN-headquarters had been located in New York, the love-hate-relationship continued. In the 1980s, President Reagan made sure that the USA left the UNESCO and that fees were not paid completely (one has to admit that the US paid a large share of the UN-household. But if not the most affluent nations – who else should finance supranational politics: Ethiopia or Cambodia?).And the current US-ambassador in the UN, John Bolton, is not more than a bad joke: aid for developing countries, fair trade conditions for the "Third World", protection of the environment, an international criminal court? Not with us!
The hopes of the decolonised countries that had encouraged them to make the UN an arena for their fight for a new (economic) world order in the 1970s were not fulfilled. Now it seems that unilateralism has gained acceptance and that the ideas of the UN – multilateralism and democratic relationships among the nations – have faded away.
So, is there any chance to reform the UN in such a way that it might become a democratic institution with a just balance of power among its member-states? The reform of the Security Council could be a beginning. Just as the League of Nations had been dominated by the winning nations of world war I, the UN is dominated by the winning coalition of world war II. The allies USA, Soviet Union,France and Britain united with China (until 1971 Taiwan)–to become the only permanent members of the Security Council.Today it is the object of the most controversial debates. I think, India should be a permanent member – the voices of 1 billion people must not be ignored by this institution. In the case of Germany, I´m not so sure. Why should there be a third European state? (It would be better to have just one permanent seat for the European Union). And what about Brazil, Japan – and when will the African States take a stronger position in world politics?
Also since the brave ideas of Kofi Annan has not became a reality now (he did not get the support of the USA, because he dared to criticise the war in Iraq) one starts raising these questions.Is there any hope for the UN? And what should be done?
Christian lives in Bohn,Germany and can be contacted at christiansitar@gmail.com
Do we need the United Nations Organisation at all? The UNO was established 60 years ago and by now should have undergone fundamental reforms. But the reforms are failing to go thru, because there is a lack of unity among the nations – and especially there is the ignorance from its most powerful member-state, the USA. But don´t we need an international political instrument against injustice and a counterbalance against economic globalisation?
Histororically, the career of the UN can´t be seen as a straight success-story. Certainly there have also been successes – as during the Cuba-crisis of 1962, when secretary general U Thang prevented the outbreak of an atomic third world war. But often enough, single nations have ignored UN-resolutions. As we all know, in 2003, the United States of America disregarded the UN-decisions and attacked Iraq. Isn´t this a step back undermining the development following 1945?
The USA has always cultivated a love-hate-relationship towards the UN. Inspired by the ideas of the enlightenment era, US-president Woodrow Wilson was probably the keenest founder of the League of Nations in 1919/20. Nevertheless, the USA as a nation never participated in the League ..Although since the foundation of the UN in San Francisco 1945 the UN-headquarters had been located in New York, the love-hate-relationship continued. In the 1980s, President Reagan made sure that the USA left the UNESCO and that fees were not paid completely (one has to admit that the US paid a large share of the UN-household. But if not the most affluent nations – who else should finance supranational politics: Ethiopia or Cambodia?).And the current US-ambassador in the UN, John Bolton, is not more than a bad joke: aid for developing countries, fair trade conditions for the "Third World", protection of the environment, an international criminal court? Not with us!
The hopes of the decolonised countries that had encouraged them to make the UN an arena for their fight for a new (economic) world order in the 1970s were not fulfilled. Now it seems that unilateralism has gained acceptance and that the ideas of the UN – multilateralism and democratic relationships among the nations – have faded away.
So, is there any chance to reform the UN in such a way that it might become a democratic institution with a just balance of power among its member-states? The reform of the Security Council could be a beginning. Just as the League of Nations had been dominated by the winning nations of world war I, the UN is dominated by the winning coalition of world war II. The allies USA, Soviet Union,France and Britain united with China (until 1971 Taiwan)–to become the only permanent members of the Security Council.Today it is the object of the most controversial debates. I think, India should be a permanent member – the voices of 1 billion people must not be ignored by this institution. In the case of Germany, I´m not so sure. Why should there be a third European state? (It would be better to have just one permanent seat for the European Union). And what about Brazil, Japan – and when will the African States take a stronger position in world politics?
Also since the brave ideas of Kofi Annan has not became a reality now (he did not get the support of the USA, because he dared to criticise the war in Iraq) one starts raising these questions.Is there any hope for the UN? And what should be done?
Christian lives in Bohn,Germany and can be contacted at christiansitar@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
uve raised an important question, is the UN USA personal fiefdom or a truly global organisation, i personally feel it is the former and Kofi annan's attempts to convert it into the latter have failed because why wud the americans give up their personal fiefdom? philanthropy?? no way. there is no hope for the UN, itll just be another bigger OXFAM, which ll die a slow death
First, Why do they have the HQ in NYC when US doesn't co-operate with the UN and treats it as S**t. I don't understand that.!
Considering the growth in arms and the nuclear capabilities and the growing lines between nations and the religious wars, YES with CAPS..we need the UN...a powerful UN..!!
Sidd I vote for the UN to be moved to Caracas,Venezuela. Hugo Chavez would love it. Also, Kojo Annan (Kofi's boy)has been involved in some questionable things . In fact as an American, I would favor us leaving the UN altogether. We could relieve ouself of a lot of debt in one fell swoop. Mybe Paris or Karachi or Tokyo would have the UN located there? :)
Yeah, I thought the UN summit was a waste of time. Nothing concrete decided on , but wait - did they come up with a formal definition of terrorism or something ? Talk about wasting time.
Btw, are you the same Christian who left the bit from Glass Onion on my blog ?
UN was basically for peace brokering in the Cold war era. Now, it has lost its significance.
In my post Netherlands-2, i have talked abt international court of justice. Follow the link to wikipedia, and u will find how US has unilaterally withdrawn the recognition given the ICJ and making itself out of ICJ's jurisdiction. Shame, that no one was able to question that. Now ICJ boasts abt conducting the Milosevic trial.
UN is in real problem now.. and particularly after Kofi Annan's son's rumoured involvement in Oil-for-food programme.
Thank you all for commenting!
Narayanan, yes, I agree that we need a powerful UN!
Paul, HQ in Caracas is a nice idea.. why not?
Sharad, yes, I commented on your article about I am the walrus. It´s also one of my favourite Beatles-songs (by the way: what about A day in the life?).
UN is a big failure in today's world, atleast in terms of peace and collaboration, may be other branches like WHO, UNESCO and UNICEF are making a positive difference. Why cannot it attain equillibrium is, becasue the biggest financial pillar for maintaining a Dummy organization like that is, USA and the financially string nations.
Might is Right is the principle that works every where in this world. At the end of the day we see the same animal behaviour in every corner of the world.
I might sound pacimistic, but again Probably the system will correct itself at some point.
I have been to the UN in Newyork and after the tour I had certain questions to the Intern and she was quite baffled. Poor girl what can she answer :-)
I favor the UN leaving New York and I have nominated Karachi,Pakistan as host city with Pakistan having a permanent seat on the Security Council. Kofi and Kojo Annan are of questionable character. If not Karachi then Harare,Zimbabwe perhaps. In fact I favor American withdrawal from the UN.
I don´t understand why national isolation could be a solution, Paul..
And I don´t understand all this bashing against Kofi Annan.
Post a Comment