An international panel last week officially presented a blueprint to overhaul the UN as it reaches age 60 next year, proposing sweeping changes but also keeping core concepts, including the right to self-defence which could include pre-emptive acts.
Pre-emptive policies have become a controversial issue after US President George W. Bush launched the war against Iraq on allegations -- later proved untrue -- that former president Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and presented a threat to the world.
A deeply divided UN Security Council refused to back the invasion last year, but the new proposals from a 16-member blue ribbon panel appeared to offer a framework where such pre-emptive actions would be allowed as long as they are defensive acts and have the backing of the council.
The panel's blueprint for reform, commissioned by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, was unveiled formally to the 191 members of the organization on Thursday, after parts of the report were released earlier last week.
Annan said rules governing use of force remain "at the heart of who we are as the UN and what we stand for. I cannot overemphasize how important a new consensus on this issue is for a renewed system of collective security."
The panel reaffirmed the right of governments to self-defence, including pre-emptive action when an attack is imminent and in cases combining terrorist and nuclear attacks, which it called "nightmare scenarios."
But it said the UN Security Council must act swiftly and more proactively than in the past.
The panel left unchanged Article 51 of the UN Charter, which essentially supports the inherent individual or collective rights of self-defense against an armed attack.
"The panel did not discuss the war in Iraq and made no characterization about its nature" when it drafted the blueprint, Sebastian Einsiedel told reporters. He is part of a team of researchers for the reform package.
"We do not pass judgement on legitimacy of war, we just urged the Security Council to be proactive," he said.
The blueprint will provide the basis for discussions over the coming year, and recognized the difficulty of changing such a large and complex organization by warning that not all the 101 recommendations for change would be accepted, including proposed new models for the 15-nation council.
The panel broadened the
scope of threats in today's world
to include infectious disease,
HIV/AIDS and poverty as well as weapons of mass destruction, and proposed a new collective security consensus that would put an expanded UN Security Council in charge of peace and security in the world.
"I wholly endorse its core arguments for a broader, more comprehensive system of collective security: one that tackles both new and old threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states -- rich and poor, weak and strong," Annan said upon receiving the blueprint.
The commission, named the High Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, was headed by former Thai prime minister Anand Panyarachun and spent more than a year to develop the 93-page blueprint, entitled A more secure world: Our shared responsibility.
Its members included former heads of government like Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, Gareth Evans of Australia and Yevgeny Primakov of Russia, security experts like Brent Scowcroft of the US and former Chinese foreign minister Qian Qichen (
The panel said past conflicts resulted from the differences of power, wealth and geography. Existing collective security arrangements are "simply a system for protecting the rich and powerful," it said.
The panel endorsed an "emerging norm" for the Security Council to intervene militarily as a "last resort, in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent."
"What is needed today is nothing less than a new consensus between alliances that are frayed between wealthy nations and poor, and among peoples mired in mistrust across an apparently widening cultural abyss," the blueprint said.
Since the end of World War II, hundreds of wars, big and small, exploded. Some were fully authorized by the UN, including the 1950 to 1953 Korean War, the 1991 war against Iraq and Haiti in 1994. The current war in Iraq, launched by the US in March 2003, has been called "illegal" by Annan because it was received no specific UN authorization.
A major recommendation is to enlarge the Security Council from 15 to 24 members, but without changing status of the current five permanent members with veto powers -- the US, Russia, China, France and Britain, all victors from World War II.
The two models proposed are expected to generate heated discussion among countries that want to become permanent members -- Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and African nations like Egypt and Nigeria. But the proposal would not give veto votes to new permanent members.
The panel called for amending the UN Charter, the organization's constitution since 1945, and its outdated references to Germany and Japan as "enemies." These two countries are among the top five contributors to UN budgets.
The blueprint urged governments to donate annually US$10 billion dollars to fight HIV/AIDS, set aside 0.7 per cent of gross national product for development in poor countries and to reduce debt.
Issues of terrorism were prominently raised by the panel, which offered elements for defining terrorism to help UN members conclude discussion on the completion of a convention against terrorism.
Some of the recommendations were aimed at the UN General Assembly and its agencies dealing with social and economic issues.
The UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva was called to expand its membership from 53 to 191 and to eliminate disputes on the examination of human rights situation in the world.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing