<
However, the truth is that even those who put forth the suggestion of re-organisation
or, at the very least, of reforms, do not seem to be convinced
of its effectiveness, when one takes into account the doubts expressed
now and again in the US Senate, which is the place where the panacea
idea of re-organisation was born. That the United Nations is in
need of re-organisation today is indisputable. No organisation,
especially a multi-national one, such as the United Nations, which
desires to and must be vibrant, can either "manoeuvre"
or "live" on the basis of circumstances of an era
that have for some time subsided. Reforms are required. Indeed,
it is from this point that the difficulties begin.
This need was detected at least eight years ago, before the collapse
of the Eastern bloc and before the Group of Non-Aligned Countries
lost any meaning. The ideas that were being put forth were aimed
at the "adaptation" of the international facts of
the moment, to the financial needs of the organisation, at the
upgrade of certain of its services, at the change of the classification
of some of its activities, etc.. Thus, the expansion of the Security
Council was occasionally proposed, as was the restriction of the
veto right, the limitation of the competencies granted to the
peace-keeping force of the United Nations, etc.. Bright or even
naive ideas, which were never implemented (this was not possible)
because the acceptance of even the most superficial reform possibly
threatened to disrupt the global balance.
Only when the United States "delayed" (read: refused)
to pay their annual contribution did the then competent and incompetent
officials of the International Organisation begin to explore "new
ideas". As expected, the proposed "ideas"
sought to respond to the pressure exerted by the United States.
That's is to satisfy that which was, with sufficient harshness,
expressed by the chairman of the Senate's Committee for
Foreign Affairs, Mr. Jessie Helms, namely that "the reforms
(within the United Nations) must aim at cutting personnel from
the bottom to the top and at reducing corresponding services".
However, the problem of the United Nations is not a financial
one. Though surely expenses could be reduced, the number of the
60,000 and more employees, who either directly or indirectly "belong"
to the United Nations (and are paid by any means), could be decreased,
and the army of 9,000 officials, counsellors, employees etc. of
the Secretariat indeed must be reduced. The United States, having
ensured an absolute monocracy in all bodies of the international
organisation and, of course, in its executive branch, the Security
Council, is not terribly concerned in more radical, modernising
reforms. However, solutions to the financial problem are not difficult
to be found, although it is here that the efforts of Mr. Boutros
Boutros Gali collapsed and it seems that overtures initiated by
Mr. Coffi Anan have met with difficulties.
The problem of the United Nations is the turmoil that has been
caused by the abundance of committees, sub-committees, councils
etc., as well as the resolutions taken (85 for Bosnia, within
barely four months), resolutions which are often conflicting and
cancel each other out (e.g. for Afghanistan in 1992, for Timor
in 1994 etc.). A consequence of this turmoil is the growth of
personnel and, consequently, of UN expenses. A further consequence
is, inevitably, the reciprocal overlapping of committees and councils,
and, of course, of their respective resolutions. Surely, it does
not contribute to the prestige of an international organisation,
when its resolutions remain unimplemented, especially in todayÕs
post cold-war era.
The efforts towards modernisation, reforms or however else certain
large countries would like to put it, must aim at the solution
of these problems. The United Nations requires "thorough
institutional restructuring", as Mr. Coffi Anan noted when
assuming the duties of Secretary General in early January. However,
with approximately thirty years experience in the bureaucracy
of the organisation, he was quick to add that with respect to
these institutional changes "it is up to the member-states
of the United Nations to say what they want and what they can
do", thereby underlining the difficulties which emerge
when respective resolutions are undertaken. Disappointing many
in Washington, which may be sufficiently taxing for him, his first
announcement stated that, at present, no high-ranking officials
of the Secretariat will be dismissed, and his second stated, that
no step, no proposal for reform will be ready for announcement
and elaboration before next June.
Two projects related to the modernisation of the United Nations,
both in general terms, drew the attention and are the working
subject of a group of experts who, headed by the (newly appointed)
experienced Canadian diplomat Mr. Maurice Strong, initiated consideration
of the issue. The first is of American origin and inspiration,
the second is the result of joint European efforts. It is interesting
that both extend the modernisation proposals even beyond the reforms
in the United NationsÕ Secretariat and, in a way, render
the financial element secondarily important. Characteristically,
the "project" of the Europeans notes somewhere that
the problem of the United Nations "is not its expenses
but its revenues" surely, alluding to the "delays"
on the part of USA contribution. The philosophy behind the European
proposal is that "there is no co-ordination" in
the whole operation of the United Nations and that there is an
"overlapping of most of the competencies" of its
committees etc.. It acknowledges however, that the majority of
the Organisation's member-states more than likely believe
that "almost all reforms will aim at reducing the expenses
and the services offered (by the United Nations), despite its
more efficient and effective operation".
Still more ambiguous is the American "plan" which
has secured the backing of Britain. In the form of a panacea,
it makes a proposal for a second Secretary General who will deal
with current problems on a daily basis, and also proposes the
discontinuance of jobs and the dissolution of certain Committees,
as well as the merger of others. Amongst those who recommend the
dissolution are UNIDO, of the Organisation for Industrial Development
based in Vienna, and CPUOS, of the Commission for the Peaceful
Use of the Space. The American proposal also supports the creation
of a super-administration, the United Nations Alliance for the
People, in which most well respected activities of the United
Nations will be included, such as UNICEF, the Organisation for
the Children, UNHCR, the Supreme Governorship for the Refugees,
WFP, the World-wide Food Program, the Department of Humanistic
Affairs, etc..
It can not be conjectured that the American proposal or, even,
the more general European one, fills the officials of the Secretariat
with enthusiasm. Many talk of "even more confusion"
and others see a "deadlock", agreeing that the only
thing these changes will achieve if the proposals are accepted
by the 185 member-states, of course will be an unquestionable
cutback on expenses, but also a restriction of the general peace-keeping
activity of the United Nations.
Two functions which are being modernised, remain untouched or,
are being backed by existing "plans": The Peace-Keeping
Force and the Economic-Social Organisation (ECOSOC). These are
signs of the times, of course, as United Nations forces, or reinforced
as the case may be, with ample NATO presence and United States
logistics, have in the last years made an appearance in various
areas of the planet, in view of crises or even after their diplomatic
confrontation.
As regards ECOSOC, the American proposal emphasises the role which
the private (economic and social) initiative "will be invited
to play in connection with the subject". It is particularly
characteristic that the surplus of offices and sub-committees
of the Organisation "is being pointed out", implying
that, if certain activities were assigned to individuals, it would
be possible to abolish or even abridge many committees, work groups,
offices etc.. The restriction of certain competencies and activities,
and as a result, of respective committees, offices etc., as well
as ECOSOC's personnel, is backed by the European proposal
as well.
This simple list of the main points of the proposals for the modernisation
of the United Nations provides an indication of the problem's
magnitude. Add the issue of the Security Council, where only with
respect to the question of the veto there are up to now seven
proposals (all politically disputed), and where the proposal related
to the increase of its members' number comes up against
national juxtapositions, geographical balances, political priorities
also inclusive of racial disagreements, one gets an idea of how
complicated an apparently simple subject becomes when it is administered
by more than 180 members. Of course, the question mark always
remains which must at some point be satisfied: What is after all,
this Secretary General? Is he an "employee" of the
Organisation's member-states with ceaseless questionable
competencies, is he a representative of a confused policy of each
majority, is he "an independent super-employee whose judgement
is subject to examination, but not to question", as was
the favoured view expressed by Mr. Kostas Stavropoulos in his
legal opinion, which was offered in the 70's, in response
to a question put to him by the then United Nations' Secretary
General, Mr. U. Thant.
With a good sense of reality, a few days ago the new Secretary
General evaluated the situation in the light of the "imminent
long-term reforms", pointing out that the United Nations
is today faced with "an economic and political crisis which,
undoubtedly, requires an adequate span of time, inspiration and
deep critical study" for their realisation. Replying to
questions put to him by United States Senators, his statement
undoubtedly did not meet with their satisfaction, "the
United States must compromise with the views, opinions and will
of the other member-states", as regards the modernisation
of the United Nations. Unfortunately, there is usually a significant
gap between the recommendations of the (occasionally) Secretary
General of the United Nations and those ordered by the United
States.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Brian Urkuhart: A Life in Peace and War. Harper
& Row 1987
2. Lloyd Gardner: Spheres of Inffluence. Ivan Ree 1993
3. Martin Walker - The Cold War. Harry Holt, 1993
4. Jay Wink On the Brink. Simon & Shuster 1996
5. Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy Simon & Shuster 1994
6. Peter Drucker: The New Realities. Heinemann 1997
7. A.W. Reed: European Union Towards a New Life 1996, Oxford University
Press
8. The New Yorker, December 1996
9. Nation: January 1997
