The prime International institution of the world, The United Nations Organization, which was established in 1945 post world war 2, to promote international peace and collective security, after seven decades is thinking seriously about a structural and comprehensive reform agenda. The "10 point declaration", recently proposed by UN has already received support from over 120 countries across all the continents. We would analyse the concerns and prospects around this 'hopefully promising but yet sceptical action plan' endorsed by the UN.
★ Theoretical and historical background:
Well, known sociologist, Daniel Bell says "nation states are too big for small problems and too small for big problems"
Which necessitates the establishment of global institutions or Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGO's). Global institutions provide a large Network of state and non-state actors, a forum for civilised dialogue, debate, discussion, interaction and a platform to augment effective communication of the issues and interests concerned. Henceforth it provides a new space, which enables the nation states in initiating avenues for cooperation, creates comprehensive dispute settlement mechanism and helps in institutionalizing economic and trade negotiations.
Second world war officially ended after the unconditional surrender of Japan to allied powers after a nuclear devastation on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The winners of the second world war ( European powers and the United States) took a firm initiative of establishing a permanent International institution to prevent future global wars and establish peace in the world order. As a result of profound dialectic thinking and discourse,
United Nations was born. Pioneering efforts of establishing an International organization should be credited to Woodrow Wilson's 14 points program which envisaged the need of a global peacekeeping institution. At the time of establishment of the UN, the fundamental principles were adopted as the core values of the United Nations. Which were,
1) Sovereign equality of Nation States.
2) International problems concerning the territorial disputes and conflicts shall fall under the United Nations.
3) Maintaining International peace and security in the world order.
Well, known sociologist, Daniel Bell says "nation states are too big for small problems and too small for big problems"
Which necessitates the establishment of global institutions or Inter-Governmental Organizations (IGO's). Global institutions provide a large Network of state and non-state actors, a forum for civilised dialogue, debate, discussion, interaction and a platform to augment effective communication of the issues and interests concerned. Henceforth it provides a new space, which enables the nation states in initiating avenues for cooperation, creates comprehensive dispute settlement mechanism and helps in institutionalizing economic and trade negotiations.
Second world war officially ended after the unconditional surrender of Japan to allied powers after a nuclear devastation on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The winners of the second world war ( European powers and the United States) took a firm initiative of establishing a permanent International institution to prevent future global wars and establish peace in the world order. As a result of profound dialectic thinking and discourse,
United Nations was born. Pioneering efforts of establishing an International organization should be credited to Woodrow Wilson's 14 points program which envisaged the need of a global peacekeeping institution. At the time of establishment of the UN, the fundamental principles were adopted as the core values of the United Nations. Which were,
1) Sovereign equality of Nation States.
2) International problems concerning the territorial disputes and conflicts shall fall under the United Nations.
3) Maintaining International peace and security in the world order.
★ A critical assessment of the working of the United Nations:
Amongst the six principal organs of the UN
Amongst the six principal organs of the UN
( 1. Security Council 2. General Assembly 3. Secretariat 4. Economic and social council 5.trusteeship council 6. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)). Security Council, General Assembly, social and economic council and ICJ are important organs which have played a significant role in administering the world order in the post 2nd world war period.
Security Council, which occupies the highest position in the UN, has largely been unjust and disappointing, barring a few occasions of unanimous consensus, which has lead to an unaugmented structural transformation, which has practically made it a forum of least strategic significance. General Assembly has performed far better by accommodation of New member states and allowing dialogue, debate and discussion to take place, which has represented several voices, concerns and issues of all the member states. The economic and social council has kept the UN institution intact and significant till date. Bodies like WHO, UNESCO, FAO, UNHRC, ILO etc have been very active in coordinating and successfully executing social and economic welfare programs.
Even though it has received a few criticisms of biased interventions and unfair treatment to Third world countries on human rights issues. It's working credentials have been acknowledged and appreciated by most experts and scholars. International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has invoked mixed reactions amongst actors and experts who have dwelt and studied it's working. It's the biggest limitation is, It only recognizes interstate territorial conflicts and deals exclusively on territorial disputes. Moreover, it's verdicts are non-binding in nature, which brings down its credibility by leaps and bounds. All of these critical factors have pushed for a reform agenda.
Even though it has received a few criticisms of biased interventions and unfair treatment to Third world countries on human rights issues. It's working credentials have been acknowledged and appreciated by most experts and scholars. International Court of Justice, on the other hand, has invoked mixed reactions amongst actors and experts who have dwelt and studied it's working. It's the biggest limitation is, It only recognizes interstate territorial conflicts and deals exclusively on territorial disputes. Moreover, it's verdicts are non-binding in nature, which brings down its credibility by leaps and bounds. All of these critical factors have pushed for a reform agenda.
★ 10 point reform declaration in a nutshell.
1) Secretary-General of UN to lead the organization reforms.
2) Strengthening partnerships and trust amongst Nations.
3) Improved mandate delivery through stronger collaboration.
4) Impactful and field centric reform management.
5) Accountability, Transparency, authority with responsibly.
6) Reduction in duplication, redundancy and overlap among various UN organs.
7) Increase in importance to human resource management policies and emphasis on gender parity.
8) Strengthen organized planning and Budget functions.
9) Increase humanitarian response, enhance development and sustain peace initiatives.
10) Enabling a platform to promote the Sustainable development goals.
1) Secretary-General of UN to lead the organization reforms.
2) Strengthening partnerships and trust amongst Nations.
3) Improved mandate delivery through stronger collaboration.
4) Impactful and field centric reform management.
5) Accountability, Transparency, authority with responsibly.
6) Reduction in duplication, redundancy and overlap among various UN organs.
7) Increase in importance to human resource management policies and emphasis on gender parity.
8) Strengthen organized planning and Budget functions.
9) Increase humanitarian response, enhance development and sustain peace initiatives.
10) Enabling a platform to promote the Sustainable development goals.
★ A reform agenda centred on bureaucratic, administrative changes and financial concerns of the Developed Nations:
From the recent deliberations which were held in the UN under the senior secretary general staff members, and UN ambassadors from major countries their was a lengthy discussion on the long awaited reforms of the UN system. The most significant set of agendas were explicitly spoken mostly by the western countries. US diplomats spoke of a magnanimous rise in UN Budget to 140% since it's establishment, and how unsuccessful it has become in recent years in delivering results. Their view was, " UN has not reached its full potential in recent years because of bureaucracy and mismanagement". They mentioned about the doubling up of UN staff since 2000 but said results are not in line with it. He also mentioned, that USA funds close to 22% of the UN Budget annually. But according to them, the results of this "investment" is not fetching adequate results, to put in in their exact verbatim. To quote Former National Security Advisor of USA Mr John Bolton "the UN is an MNC and as any other profit-oriented company, UN should also multiply this investment in favour of it's most prominent investor". This is a clear indication that USA is footing significant bills of the UN and it must reflect the hegemonic character of the USA in the international forum by not just demanding but commanding accountability for it's every action. Perhaps it becomes clear that they do not recognize the difference between investment and financial aid and assistance for the purpose of global peace and collective security. What is perhaps surprising is that even the secretary general echoed similar points,
He made his speech soon after the US diplomats and spoke about the need to augment changes such as shifting focus more on people and less on the process, the necessity to increase the efficiency of delivery mechanism and streamlining bureaucracy. He mentioned the urgency in reviving the fragmented structures, byzantine procedures and endless red tape. USA's financial concerns got a recognition when their diplomats lamented about the principle of 'value for money ' to be seriously considered by every member state. But on the latter part the deliberations, US diplomats spoke about a few significant elements were dwelt upon like, reorganizing peace and security sections of the UN, to enable prevention and mediation, promotion of shared values and Sustainable development goals. The overall deliberations we're upon bureaucracy and administrative reforms. Nothing significant was mentioned about dealing with the less developed countries, growing economic inequalities, refugee crisis, increasing socio-cultural gaps and disputes, combating global terror and radicalization across the world which has costed the lives of several million in past three decades in particular.
In a time where conflicts are going through rapid transformations, a new peacekeeping mechanism is required, the UN has jurisdiction over only territorial conflicts and disputes which is interstate in nature. The need of the hour is to address the intra-state conflicts which would require a peacekeeping 2.0 mechanism. Unfortunately, since this Reform agenda does not talk even a word about UN security council, which has been paralyzed by the P5 countries by the power of veto, a paradigm shift conflict resolution mechanism is a distinct dream unless a global leader of vision and statesmanship craft emerges.
★ Concerns and interests which need to be addressed by India: India needs to create a balance between the pursuit of its narrow national interest and its responsibility as a rising power. For its part, India has suggested that the UN reforms need to be “broad-based and all-encompassing” and the changes should not be restricted to its secretariat only. India’s former permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin, has made it clear that reforms cannot sidestep issues related to the governance of UN bodies. But India has extended its support to Trump’s efforts at UN reforms, saying it should include the expansion of the world body’s permanent and non-permanent members to keep pace with the changing times.
Since the end of the Cold War, India has been spearheading a move for reforms at the UN to make the world body more representative of the changing global realities while enhancing its credibility and effectiveness. India remains one of the largest contributors to the UN peacekeeping operations, providing almost 200,000 troops in nearly 50 of the 71 peacekeeping missions mandated over the past six decades. It is not surprising, therefore, that New Delhi has been concerned about the post-Cold War international acceptance of the UN’s questionable “right to intervene” where it believed it to be necessary, allowing the UN to act with little debate. The nature of the military operations increased both in number and complexity over an extremely short timescale. Additionally, the UN peacekeepers were deployed to environments in which the belligerent parties were not entirely on board with the deployment, thus seriously threatening the safety of the troops under the UN flag. India has repeatedly underlined the dangers inherent in such a rapid transformation from traditional UN missions to these new operations.
Since the end of the Cold War, India has been spearheading a move for reforms at the UN to make the world body more representative of the changing global realities while enhancing its credibility and effectiveness. India remains one of the largest contributors to the UN peacekeeping operations, providing almost 200,000 troops in nearly 50 of the 71 peacekeeping missions mandated over the past six decades. It is not surprising, therefore, that New Delhi has been concerned about the post-Cold War international acceptance of the UN’s questionable “right to intervene” where it believed it to be necessary, allowing the UN to act with little debate. The nature of the military operations increased both in number and complexity over an extremely short timescale. Additionally, the UN peacekeepers were deployed to environments in which the belligerent parties were not entirely on board with the deployment, thus seriously threatening the safety of the troops under the UN flag. India has repeatedly underlined the dangers inherent in such a rapid transformation from traditional UN missions to these new operations.
Since the cessation of the Cold War, there have been attempts to reform the international legal system to reflect the rights of the individual over and above those of the state. But India, along with other largely non-Western nations, has remained sceptical of these attempts at reforms, believing that any such reforms would afford the privileged few with the means to intervene, the moral justification to do so. Therefore, the US administration’s focus on “sovereignty” as the defining feature of UN reforms will be welcomed by New Delhi. But as India continues to expand its diplomatic capital on finding a seat at the UN Security Council, it will also have to articulate new ways of how the UN can be made more effective and efficient.
Comments
Post a Comment