The UN needs reform. On that everyone agrees. But there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose. Again and again over the years, the UN has been reformed – on average once every eight years. But the pace has now quickened and reform projects seem almost a constant part of the landscape. Foundations, think tanks and blue ribbon commissions regularly call for institutional renovation at the UN. Secretary Generals frequently re-organize departments and set up new coordinating committees. NGOs gather to press their reform causes. Diplomats negotiate. And from Washington come somber warnings that the UN must "reform or die."
 |
|
Picture Credit:
United nations
|
But after the fireworks, the same problems persist – because the shortcomings of the UN are primarily rooted in the dysfunctional global order and the conflict-prone state system, not in the UN's institutional arrangements. Few reformers are willing to admit that the UN's complex and inefficient machinery results from deep political disagreements among its members and between other contending forces in the global system. Yet the United States, military superpower and transnational corporate headquarters, clearly wants a weak UN with an impossibly small budget and scarcely any voice in economic matters. Many other nations, to the contrary, want a stronger UN and more effective multilateral policy making. Whose "reform" is to prevail? And how will any newly-devised UN institutions be paid for?
UN Reform debates have revealed deep divides between states and among NGOs and other reform advocates. While some seek to strengthen the UN and improve accountability and efficiency, there are those who seek reform only on their terms. The US consistently pushes its own agenda for change and aims to weaken the UN. Various areas of UN Reform, include the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council, the Peacebuilding Commission, Management Reform, Responsibility to Protect, and the creation of a UN Standing Force. General analysis on the UN reform topics can be found here.
 |
|
Picture Credit:
Unifem
|
The Millennium+5 reforms, proposed by the Secretary General Kofi Annan in March 2005, were neither ambitious nor far-reaching. Designed to please (or at least not to displease) the superpower, they substantially ignored the most urgent issues – the UN's financial woes, the unilateralism of the superpower, the absence of real disarmament, and the shaky and unjust global economic order. For a time, it seemed that these modest if flawed reforms might nevertheless be adopted. But as the summit approached, negotiations faltered, due largely to last-minute, far-reaching demands from Washington. In the end, the world leaders approved an embarrassingly weak document, filled mostly with empty platitudes. It remains to be seen how the UN will weather this contentious and divisive reform process, and what avenues remain open for a stronger and more effective multilateral system. A good introduction to UN Reform with detailed analysis and background information can be found here.
Over the years, there have been numerous initiatives to reform the UN. These range from summits of heads of state, to panels of experts, to the reform efforts by UN Secretary Generals. GPF follows and critically analyses the actions of these UN reform initiatives and monitors subsequent progress.
Financing of the UN is an additional source for debate. As a solution to the constant financial shortages faced by the organization, many experts have suggested Alternative Financing schemes such as Global Taxes to improve the UN financial situation and make the organization less dependent on government contributions.
GPF provides links and resources for further research on UN reform.
