Essentially, there are two types of reforms. Ones that require the consent of the Permanent Members, and the ones that depend on the General Assembly or on the civil societies in each of the member states. Admittedly, all, except perhaps three of the reforms mentioned below, does need a degree of cooperation from the Permanent Members.

Reforms dependent on civil society

1. One of the most immediate, and fairly rapidly achievable, reform concerns the accountability of our UN representative to members of Parliament. The appointment of our Ambassador to the UN should be scrutinised by a select committee, and he/she should report to that committee on a regular basis.

The effect of this reform should not be underestimated. It would raise the level of awareness among our MPs of how the UN functions. It would make them aware of its potential and of the reasons for its present limitations. In turn, it would demand more accurate reporting from the media. Hopefully, these two factors would lead to a radical rethinking among the policy makers of how the UN should function.

Very much related to this reform is the need for openness in Security Council deliberations. Linda Melvern has extensive and detailed facts relating to this issue.

2. UN Second Assembly. Although there is already a special Millenium Forum (scheduled for July 2002), a ‘People’s Assembly’ should be a regular feature of the UN. It is fair to say that NGOs (on the Millenium Forum or on the People’s Assembly) are more representative of the ‘people of the UN’ than government appointees.

Jeffrey J. Segall is one of the main moving forces behind this initiative both nationally (through UNGA-Link), and internationally.

3. Need to implement the neglected or ignored aspects of the Charter. These should be spelt out in detail. - e.g. Article 26 which is consistently being sidelined; Article 43, and especially Article 47. Also, less emphasis should be placed on Article 51 and, perhaps, the ICJ should be asked to clarify the amount of armaments needed for self-defence, and also ask the Security Council to co-ordinate the supply of any such armaments.

4. Need for International Law regarding the dissemination of hatred and the call to violence. Although in the UK we do have such a law, there is no equivalent of it internationally. If such law existed at the time of the Rwandan crisis, the various media involved in the build up to that violence could have been silenced long before the trouble got out of control. This law would, naturally, need to be backed up with quick and effective means to enforce it. All the violent conflicts involve the misuse of the media one way or the other. We have to put a stop to this on the international level.

5. Need for the UN to have its own Ambassadors. Currently, (almost unbelievably) the UN relies on NGOs or on a collection of second-hand reporting when trying to deal with a humanitarian disaster or trying to ameliorate a military conflict that has gone wrong. These Ambassadors, just like any other ambassadors, would be the ‘eyes’ the ‘ears’ and the ‘mouth’ of the UN. It would not be a ceremonial role, but very much a simple, business-like arrangement, - along the Dutch system. The UN should not have to rely on second-hand information. In many cases, the role of the present directors of UN Information Centres could be simply upgraded. (Incidentally, there need not be an Ambassador in each country.)

6. Need to have selection by merit rather than by quota. At present, many of the important posts within the UN are made on the quota system. This means that many of the appointees are unsuitable, and are in effect doing a disservice to the UN. (The so called scandals of mismanagements and corruption in the UN system can be attributed to these individuals.) There should be a strict selection by merit. There could be an international equivalent of a civil service exam, and anyone appointed should have an unequivocal allegiance to the UN. (In order to prevent this "UN Civil Service" to be staffed mainly from the Permanent Members’ countries, there could be a proportionate number of people invited from developing countries to take this exam.)

There is a detailed exposition of this in ‘Renewing the United Nations System’, ‘A World in Need of Leadership’, ‘Towards a more effective United Nations’. - (All by Erskine Childers and Brian Urquhart.)

7. UN Peace Corp There is natural opposition to the UN having a ‘standing’ army. This is understandable, and there is really no need for such a force. However, there is no reason why there could not be volunteers, in several countries, trained along the principles of the territorial army, ready to serve the UN if and when required. (At very short notice.) These volunteers would, naturally, be well motivated, well equipped, highly trained and qualified. Each unit would be equipped to do a specific task such as securing the communication system in a given area. A country such as Britain, could also pledge some of its regular armed forces to this UN Peace Corp. (And, incidentally, a UN commander would be in charge, answerable to the Military Staff Committee, and to no one else.)

Also, there should be more emphasis on ‘policing for the UN’ rather than on ‘military intervention’.

1. Financing the UN - If the UN is to function effectively, it will need to be financed in a way that is not dependent on the vagaries of the current national or international political systems. Whatever method is chosen, whether a tax on international money transactions, or a tax on aviation, or any other system, it does not matter. What matters is the need for a different system to the current one.

2. The Veto. - The veto has been a contentious issue well before the Charter was even signed. At the time, the Member States reluctantly agreed that, given the circumstances just after the war, the Permanent Members were the only ones capable of ensuring international peace. As it turned out, the Veto has been one of the main reasons for the build up of the arms industries, simply because, instead of supposedly cooperating, the Permanent Members have continually mistrusted each other. And they still do today. A prime example is what happened in Bosnia. There, the UN mandated forces had such restricted rules of engagement, (because of the Russians insistence!), that they were unable to provide even a ‘safe haven’ for the refugees in Sebrenizca. Hence, NATO supplanting the UN. (One Permanent Member side-stepping the other.)

We should not get ourselves tied up in the minutia of what should be in place of the veto, or how many Permanent Members should be on the Security Council. This has already been debated at length by several learned bodies, including the General Assembly. What is important to bear in mind, - the Veto is not helping to secure international peace. What is more, it is proving extremely costly to shore up international law by the only method currently available, - overbearing military force.

3. Need to re-examine sanctions. The current reasoning behind sanctions is that, if a targeted regime’s economy is severely curtailed, it will eventually comply with the wishes of the international community. This is a very blunt instrument. The ‘collateral’ damage on the innocent citizens of that country is enormous. Further, as a rule, they have absolutely no chance of influencing the policies of that regime.

Sanctions, if there is a need for it, should be targeted at the key personnel of that regime, - at the military, business, administrative and academic leaders. These are the people who may have an influence on that regime. Their accounts abroad should be frozen, their travel and any form of international contact should be denied. The means to achieve this are available now.

-oOo-

All these reforms are, inter-related. One will reinforce the need for the other. In the current international climate, all these can and should be considered. (Remember the collapse of the Berlin Wall. It happened very rapidly indeed. The present ‘world order’ – as interpreted by the USA, - could change the same way.)

Stephen J. Cheleda November 2001