I was in America when the United Nations celebrated its 50th
birthday. I would read some articles dealings with it in the old,
small and quiet public library. But the United Nations at that
time was far from being delighted at its anniversary; it was full
of many complicated problems. Contrary to the calm atmosphere in
the library, the headline of the article was ominous, like
“Battle Scars.” Under a picture showing the UN head
office building lighting up the words UN 50, a short
statement read: "At 50, the UN is hurting for money, and for a
clearer mission. It has to reform--but no one agrees on how." As
you can infer from this statement, 1995 was also the year of UN
reform. Although a discussion on reform is still going on, there
are many opposing views, resulting in a situation in where no one
agrees.
In this essay, I will survey 4 essays from different authors
to show and explain the various opinions about reform. There are
4 opposing points of view in these essays: empowerment of the UN,
Security Council reform, Peacekeeping Operation, and finance. I
have both approval and disapproval of their opinions, but what I
want to maintain is that reform should be done considering not
the interest of one country but the betterment of the future
world. I know it is kind of ideal, but it is definitely needed
for us to work together on serious worldwide problems. There is
little time to think about it.
The issue of empowering the UN is connected with the problem
of sovereignty since the empowerment is said to suggest a
relative fall in the power of member countries. Since it settles
the way of the UN reform, it is one of the most controversial
issues whether empowering or decentralizing UN. Boutrous
Boutrous-Ghaii, the former Secretary-General of the UN, supports
the idea of empowerment because "The time of absolute and
exclusive sovereignty has passed. Its theory was never matched by
reality. It is the task of leader of states to understand this"
(Ghali 7). On the other hand, Jesse Helms, a chairman of the U.S.
Senate committee on foreign relations, is strongly against him.
He is negative against empowering the UN since "UN reform is
about restoring the legitimacy of the nation-state" (Helms 4). He
warns that "The UN is being transformed from an institution of
sovereign nations into a quasi- sovereign entity in itself,"
which he believes is a real threat to the interest of America
(Helms 2). It seems that the two authors are proposing their
opinions on the assumption that the UN already has some power.
Yet Abba Eban, who used to be a representative of Israel at the
United Nations and also an ambassador to the U.S., says that it
is losing its power relative to other emerging world
organizations and local frameworks such as NATO. He also
maintains that the power to control the UN lies not on the UN but
in the member states (Eban 50-5 1).
Considering the ideas of those scholars and officers, I don't
think making the UN less effective is a good idea since there
will be many more global problems which can't be solved by only
one or a few countries in the future. The UN may be the most
suitable place to discuss these things, but it's easy to imagine
that the interest of member states will often conflict, and hence
sometimes they will have to compromise with each other. The UN is
where the interests of nations conflict all the time. Then, how
can you imagine "the legitimacy of the nation-state could be
lost" as Helms worries? It seems to me that the UN is the best
place where you can see the presence of nation states and their
sovereignties since there they often speak up to protect their
own interest and to get their own way. I would say that both
globalization and isolationism are taking place within the UN
What I want to emphasize is the role of the UN in some areas
while leaving the member states to settle problems as much as
they can. I agree with Helms, saying "It's not the job of the UN
to 'meet the needs' of 5.5 billion people--that is the job of
nation-states" (Helms 4).
Now I'd like to move on to the second point of contention,
Security Council Reform. The details of this issue are divided
into two: its enlargement and veto power. First I'd like to
discuss the issue on enlargement, then move on to the veto
power.
Maybe you heard of the discussion whether Japan should become
a permanent member of Security Council or not. This is a part of
the movement for its enlargement. Before showing the opinion of
some authors, I'd like to explain why it became so big issue. It
dates back to the end of the Cold War that the movement toward
enlarging Security Council has broke out. Although during the
Cold War the Security Council couldn't carry out its task since
both former Soviet Union and the U.S. had often exercised their
veto to disturb the interest of each other. With the end of the
Cold War, the role of Security Council attracted the global
attention once again because people all over the world have
started to take the Security Council as a place to manage the
international conflicts spread today. However, then the
shortcomings of the Council have started to expose; it is too
disproportionate to compare the number of the member states and
the one of Security Council. The ratio of the Security Council
members against all member states is used to be 21.6% and had
become 12.7% when the number of non-permanent countries has
increased, but then, it dropped to 8.2% today because a number of
new-emerged countries joined in the UN since 1991. It is natural
that the Security Council has started to be criticized for not
reflecting all the presence of the member states, and thus a
discussion on this issue has broke out.
Although the trend for enlarging the Security Council won't be
stopped, the way of enlarging is the problem. Here are some
opposing views; Kennedy and Russet support the enlargement of
both permanent and non-permanent member countries of the Security
Council, but they have negative attitude toward letting Germany
and Japan in the permanent members since it strengthen the
influence of the "North" (Kennedy and Russet 60-61). On the other
hand, Boutrous-Ghali, a former Secretary-General of the UN,
expects positive response from both Germany and Japan since their
participation in the permanent members is needed for the ongoing
reform (Sotooka 144).
It is obvious that while Kennedy and Russet emphasize the
"South," Ghali gives weight to the "North." Maybe they see the UN
from different point of view; Kennedy and Russet may stress on
democracy within UN; on the contrary, Ghali seems to take
priority over a continuance of the UN as an organization. It is
because if Japan and Germany becomes permanent member of Security
Council, Ghali can ask them more financial help. This difference
may be due to a disparity of their position, however, both
viewpoints are very important when you think about Security
Council reform. The power of the "North" should not be
strengthened too much, but it is also critical for the UN to get
financial support. Then, what should Japan do for it? Should
Japan be on the North side or South side? It's not a good idea
making argument separate into duality. In my point of view, it's
important for Japan to cooperate with other Asian countries and
many developing countries if it joins in P5 (Permanent Five). It
is said that developing countries see this enlargement of
Security Council as a chance to make the UN more democratic. On
the other hand, advanced nations such as America and France think
letting Japan and Germany is everything they can. I think Japan
has a responsibility to come up to their expectations. Otherwise
Japan will get worse reputation from other Asian countries that
Japan once invaded. It would be a good opportunity for Japan to
show its good faith. It also would be a good chance for Japan to
play a leadership role, which is not like the one of America.
The other division of Security Council reform is veto power.
The issue of veto has a strong relationship with the one of
enlargement since there has been an ongoing debate whether giving
new permanent members a veto or not. For instance, Kennedy and
Russet concern that the increase of the permanent members means
the increase of the veto use. While proposing the abolishment of
the veto, they suggest not to give it to the new permanent
members.
However, the UN has lasted for more than 50 years thanks to a
veto. I understand that because of a veto the Security Council
had not worked during the Cold War, but it at least prevented the
U.S. and the former Soviet Union from withdrawing. As Cordell
Hull said, "the veto provision was an absolute condition for
American participation in the United Nations" (qtd. in Eban 43).
Without the veto and the participation of the U.S., the UN would
have followed the same fate as the League of Nations. Kennedy and
Russett also assert that "It is vital that the great powers not
opt out of the organization if we learned a bitter lesson from
the experience of the League of Nations" (Paul, Russet, 61). What
they're stressing here is the necessity of veto. The idea of the
veto is very realistic, so I have to say that the veto is
necessary evil.
The third area is PKO. PKO, which stands for a Peacekeeping
Operation, is a product of the Cold War. Since a collective
security based on a compulsive measure did not work during the
Cold War, the idea of PKO was inevitably proposed. There is no
mention of PKO in the United Nations Charter, and its role is not
fixed; therefore the argument on PKO is still going on. While
Eban points out the weakness of collective security, which is
supposed to be a principal of the UN, he affirms PKO, saying it
could make up for the failure of collective security. He also
maintains that the empowerment of PKO is necessary for preserving
the UN’s prestige (Eban 51). On the contrary, Helms insists
that "Peacekeeping must be overhauled" because it costs too much
and its proliferated activity has no importance (Helms 6).
Comparing those authors' opinions, you can see there are two
different backgrounds comprising those opposing views. People who
support PKO put emphasis on its successful action in the past and
its expected new role in the future. On the other hand, people
who don't support PKO mention of its failure in Bosnia and
Somalia, and its huge financial cost. It would be better if the
cost was reduced, but Kennedy and Russet state "Deciding what
criteria to apply in evaluating a request for intervention could
be excruciatingly difficult' (Kennedy and Russet 62). However, it
is true that the UN is holding too many PKOs today. Although it's
hard, they have to examine the actual meaning of each PKO spread
all over the world. It's the responsibility of the UN for the
member states offering money. If all the PKOs were examined to be
appropriate, then we would have to follow its decision. It is
also important to examine the experience of PKO itself, why it
failed and why it succeeded. In that way, we can make the PKO and
the UN more efficient and make them more sensitive toward the
world affairs.
Finally, I'd like to discuss financial reform. As you know,
the financial problem has a strong connection with other UN
reforms such as PKO, Security Council, and Secretariat reform.
The discussion on financial reform seems to start with the
question "is the UN budget really big ?" Ghali 'says the "UN
budget is remarkably small" in relation to the scope and
significance of the organization's activity (Ghali 95). Youzou
Yokota, a professor of International Law at Tokyo University also
says the budget for the Secretariat is small: "It's much smaller
than the budget of Tokyo and Tokyo university." On the contrary,
Jesse Helms warns if the UN doesn't tackle this issue, America
will withdraw from the UN (Helms 7)
As you can infer from above opinions, the way you see the
present finance of the UN depends on the countries and your
position. Unlike America, Japan hasn't complained about the
finance so much. Japan even took a leading role for the
discussion on financial reform. However, it is better to be
reformed to the extent that the UN can carry out its task. The
member states should offer their assigned money to the UN as it
in need, But the UN also should try hard to save the money. In
other words, a mutual effort is necessary. In this point, I'm
very disappointed at the decision made by Japanese government,
which cutting the financial help for the UN
Two years have been passed since the UN’s 50th birthday.
The Secretary- General has changed from then. Although Koffi
Annan, the new Secretary-General, took over the task for reform,
there are still lots of obstacles against him. According to
Yokota, the Security Council reform won't come true by the end of
this year. A situation nobody agrees on how has not been changed
for two years. Even though it sometimes seems everyone agrees on
how, the intention of one nation differs from another. It's the
way the UN used to be, and the way it always will be. However, as
I said before, the member states should at least keep in mind
that some changes in the UN must be done for the better world in
the future, not for the betterment one nation. As Annan says, "A
reform is a process, not an event." The UN reform today may be
one of the short, normal occurrences expected in its long
history. But if the member states stick to their own interests
and ignore the goal of the UN, the world in 21st century will be
unsecured, and there will be no words UN 100 in
lights on the headquarters of the East River for the world to
see.
by Rumiko Nomura
Works Cited
Ghali, Boutrous Boutrous, "Global Leadership After the Cold
War. " Foreign Affairs (March/April 1996): 86-98.
Ghali, Boutrous Boutrous. An Agenda for Peace. New
York: UN Publications, 1992.
Kennedy, Paul, and Bruce Russet. "Reforming the United
Nations." Foreign Affairs (September/October 1995):
56-71.
Helms, Jesse. "Saving the UN: A Challenge to the Next
Secretary-General." Foreign Affairs (September/October
1996): 2-7.
Eban, Abba, "The UN Idea Revisited." Foreign Affairs
(September/October 1995): 39-55.
Sotooka, Hidetoshi. Kokurenshinjidai (A new era of
the UN). Tokyo: Chikuma Shoten, 1994.
