The UN Bid
Every word and action of UN Secretary-General used to evoke a widespread response, whereas nowadays you can barely recall the name of this international official. And the matter is not in Ban Ki-moon’s complicated name.
Secretary-General is right when he says that there is no substitute for the UN as a global organization. First, it’s a unique forum, where everyone has a representative and can take the floor. Second, it’s the head organization for a number of special-purpose agencies, from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to the Conference on Trade and Development. The UN peacemaking missions contribute to settling many regional conflicts.
These aspects of the UN activities are nonetheless in the shadow, perhaps because they seem natural. The UN is expected to take on the role of the world government, or at least the main regulator of global politics, which is impossible. The UN is the mould of the collective will of its member-states and cannot exceed the limits they set.
In the cold war times the UN Security Council was paralyzed by the ideological confrontation. Even so, mutual restrictions could be reputed as having a positive impact since they made the superpowers abstain from destabilizing activities. And the major achievement of that era was the adhering to the same rules and commitments.
Soon after the end of the global confrontation, the hope to breathe new life into the conception of the world government dashed. First, because the winners simply didn’t need it, they wanted to turn their administrative institutions into the patterns for the rest of the world. Second, slowly but surely the old system began to degrade. And with international norms and rules eroding, every political actor in the global arena seeks to strengthen their positions, rather than work for the common good.
On the one hand, everyone understands that the UN can’t be based on the principles reflecting the seventy-year-old realities. On the other hand, no one will ever forgo anything substantial. That is why the UN reform will be discussed in vain. Even the attempts to find compromise over basic concepts, say, the one terrorism, fail.
One can pretend to believe that the five permanent members of the UN SC direct the world affairs. But what can it change? It’s common practice that the SC doesn’t participate in addressing the crucial issues that might transform the world order (like the invasion of Iraq or the future of Kosovo). And taking into consideration the stance of the great powers, no one cares about it.
The former institutional order doesn’t work (the crisis affected all institutions including the seemingly flourishing NATO), and no new one appears to arise. The UN has always been a mirror reflecting the current state of world affairs. The present role of this organization fully complies with the environment it operates in, which can be described as chaotic, mismanaged and characterized with mutual distrust.
Fedor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in global affairs magazine
All the Article in Russian as of Apr. 09, 2008
|
