UNITED NATIONS REFORM

I believe in the United Nations and probably a bit too romantic about its possibilities. When I first became a New Zealand Minister and was shown my splendid office in the capital with a New Zealand flag bravely standing at attention behind the desk, a patriotic background for press conferences, I took the NZ flag down. I purchased a U.N. flag and then put them both up. An expression that a true nationalist must also be an internationalist. If the rule of law is the definition of civilisation, if the rule of law is the equaliser inside a Nation, then I figured that must be true between nations.

International rules of law and global institutions are the true guarantor of independence, especially for smaller Nations. The U.N. represents the highest ideals of mankind. The great philosopher Emmanuel Kant, hundreds of years ago at the time of the European enlightenment, wrote in his magisterial masterpiece, "Perpetual Peace" suggesting that "Perpetual Peace would be based on the tripod of representative Government, open trade, international law and institutions. It was he who first used the phrase ‘league of Nations’. George W. Bush has said his favourite President was Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt was probably the most unilateral of Presidents. It was he who broke the principle espoused by the father of the Nation, George Washington, who advised "beware of foreign entanglements." However it was Roosevelt, in a speech accepting the Nobel Prize for Peace for brokering a peace between Russia and Japan, who called for a ‘league of Nations’. Experience made him a multilateralist. I’m haunted by the words of President Wilson when very ill, spoke to the U.S. Senate urging them to accept the League of Nations and was moved to say, "Reject this Treaty and you will break the heart of the world." Multilateralism is under siege. We all know what happened next.

So imagine my excitement when becoming Director-General of the World Trade Organisation, a true multilateral institution, which is not a U.N. agency, and looking forward to building the new world alongside partner agencies in Geneva. I was disappointed to realise that the great U.N. agencies act like any other institution, turf battles, competition for resources, duplication, and egos as big as any National Parliament or local government unit. Silly me, why should it be any different at a global level as opposed to a local level?

I still get irritated by political leaders who attack the U.N. system, demand the U.N. do something, then deny the U.N. the resources, the mandate, and a coherent management system to do the job. It’s obscene when leaders attack the U.N. because peace-keepers stood idle while genocide was committed. They were instructed not to interfere. THE U.N. CAN ONLY DO WHAT GOVERNMENTS ALLOW IT TO DO. And that’s how it should be. The U.N. is not a world government. Those of us who believe in the system must be at the forefront of reforms to re-invigorate its structure and mandate, otherwise those who don’t trust multilateralism will win by continuing to undermine by preventing the reform that it needs. Like any middle-aged person or institution, the U.N. needs to go on a diet, get fit and get over its mid-life crisis. The Secretary General commissioned a timely major report on the future of the U.N. with the snappy title of the ‘United Nations High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change’. Its timely, given the loss of confidence and loss of face, when the post Cold War hope of a new world order collapsed under the weight of the tragic reality of what was Bosnia, Somalia, Kawanda, and now the grinding humiliation and impotence of the world community over the Sudan. Former Thai Prime Minister, Anand Panyarachun chaired the panel of distinguished, experienced and respected political practitioners whose report covers 101 recommendations.

The Security Council reflects the world as it was in 1945. That won’t do. How can the world’s biggest democracy, India, be excluded? How can the second largest contributor, the second largest economy, Japan, not be at the table? Asking the Security Council to reform itself is like asking the British House of Lords to reform itself. The report offers a way through by offering several formulas of a restructured, more representative Security Council. In the new world of terrorism with stateless threats of war by global non-resident fanatics and failed borderless states, disease and poverty, they have driven up the basis of a new doctrine of pre-emptive defence. That means, with U.N. authorisation where governments are unable or unwilling to protect their citizens, there could be pre-emptive force. This is an historic moment in global diplomacy. The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of a state is now in question. Murder, the harbouring of terrorists, destruction of life and property could no longer be brushed aside with the old alibi, that this is a domestic concern and no business of the international community. This challenges a diplomatic principle hundreds of years old, born out of the Treaty of Westphalia of the absolute sovereignty of the Nation state. In its measurement of the threshold for U.N. action, the report expresses five principles of legitimacy that should be considered by the Security Council. Seriousness of the threat, proper purpose, force as a last resort, proportional means, and ensuring a balance of consequences. This new doctrine is covered by a new principle. The responsibility to protect. The report also suggests a Peace Building Commission to prevent the collapse of failed states, and to assist nations to make a peaceful transition to peace and recovery. This could provide much needed coherence and focus between the global institutions whose contradictory advice and policies often cause much confusion, waste and inaction. It’s a bit light on management reforms unfortunately. Some of the U.N. management systems are at best outdated, self-serving and costly. They would make a manager of a Soviet steelworks blush with their lack of coherence, accountability and conflicting mandates, which brings the whole U.N. system into disrepute. How this report is received, considered and implemented will shape the future of global diplomacy for the next half century of the U.N.