A pretty big story that isn’t really getting a lot of attention is the current “crisis” at the United Nations. The organization is being questioned on a number of fronts, including whether or not it is relevant at all. In his annual report last year, Secretary-General Kofi Annan commented on the issue, “Rarely have such dire forecasts been made about the UN. We have reached a fork in the road…a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the UN was founded.”
Today, December 1st, is the day that Annan is supposed to receive a report on collective security from a high-level panel of 16 international members. The report, analysts say, may help decide the fate of the UN. The major problem with the panel? The average age of the panelists is over 70. I am no expert on this sort of thing, but it seems to me that the way to reinvigorate an aging organization is not by asking it’s oldest members what to do. I think there needs to be some younger perspective. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we should have teenagers on the panel, but certainly someone younger than my grandparent’s age.
In any case, there are calls for a revamping of the Security Council. Specifically, six new permanent members would be added, possibly with a veto, but likely without. The “aspirant four” that would likely get seats are Japan, Brazil, India, and Germany. That makes sense – Germany is clearly a power in Europe, Japan probably contributes more money to the UN than the United States, Brazil is a very healthy South American country, and India is home to one sixth of the world’s population. The other two seats are likely to go to African countries.
Now I have been reading about this quite a bit lately – it is something that really interests me. So when I came across this Reuters article, I was quite surprised. The article mentions the so-called “enemy state” clause of the UN Charter:
The clause, dating back to the Second World War, allows for military action against Japan and Germany, without any endorsement by the Security Council.
Could such a clause really exist? After all this time? I was so surprised I went and checked the UN Charter myself. Sure enough, articles 53 and 107 both talk about such action being allowed. The Second World War was decades ago. Why hasn’t this clause been removed? It certainly doesn’t sound like the sort of thing that belongs in the charter of an international organization focused on peace!
I know circumstances were different in 1945, but this is 2005 now (almost). If nothing else is changed at the United Nations, I hope that at the very least this stupid clause is removed from the charter. I think it is appalling that such a clause still exists. Now it is expected that the panel will recommend its removal, but you never know. I’d also really like to see at least the “aspirant four” nations added to the Security Council with permanent status and a veto. Actually ideally, I’d like to see the whole veto thing dropped completely. Two-thirds majority of Security Council members should be good enough, no vetoes necessary.
The whole issue is quite interesting, and won’t be sorted out tomorrow. If you care about the future of international relations you should definitely be paying attention. In my opinion, the United Nations should be the dominant world body, not the United States, China, or any other country. Here’s to hoping the UN can fix the problems and grow even stronger.
[I used this Economist.com article and this Google search for background information and quotes. You might also find this Wikipedia article useful.]
MasterMaq's Blog 