Committee reports are usually deadly dull, and UN committee reports are among the dullest. But the recent report of the UN Secretary General's High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and Change broke that rule. Sixteen political leaders and former diplomats combined principle with political realism to produce the most comprehensive proposals for change since the UN was created in 1945.
Secretary General Kofi Annan is to present the report in March. Then it will be up to governments to act.
ILLUSTRATION MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Many early comments focus on the Panel's recommendations for enlarging the UN Security Council from 15 to 24 members. The report proposes two alternatives. One would add six new permanent members -- such as India, Brazil, Egypt, South Africa, Japan and Germany -- as well as three two-year members. The other alternative would create eight semi-permanent members with renewable four-year terms and one additional member chosen for a two-year term.
Either proposal would entail amending the UN Charter, which requires marshaling the support of a two-thirds majority of the 191 member states, including the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council. Skeptics doubt that this is feasible.
But focusing on enlargement of the Security Council risks diverting attention from the rest of the Panel's analyses and 101 recommendations for reform, many of which do not require amending the Charter. According to the report, the General Assembly has lost vitality, the Security Council must be more proactive, the Commission on Human Rights suffers from a legitimacy deficit, the Secretariat should be more professional and better organized, and major institutional gaps hinder responses to economic and social threats to international security. The report is critical of the organization's performance on genocide in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, as well as the late response to HIV/AIDS.
In the panel's words, the UN was created above all "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," but today the biggest security threats we face "go far beyond states waging aggressive war. The preoccupation of the UN founders was with state security. When they spoke of creating a new system of collective security they meant it in the traditional military sense."
Today the threats are from non-state actors as well as states, and they jeopardize human security as well as that of states. Collective security nowadays means a broader sharing of responsibility for each other's security.
The Panel deals forthrightly with the new transnational threats posed by terrorists and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Its members agreed that there could be "nightmare scenarios" that combine the two and might require the preventive use of force. They urge strengthening the non-proliferation regime through more intrusive inspections, and negotiation of arrangements for internationally guaranteed access to nuclear enrichment and reprocessing services, rather than allowing countries to construct them for themselves.
They back US President George W. Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative aimed at stopping traffic in weapons of mass destruction. On terrorism, they break the long UN impasse over finding a definition, condemning all attacks against civilians, and propose a number of measures that member states should take.
Regarding preventive use of force, traditional interpretations of Article 51 of the UN Charter (which provides a right of self-defense) allow a threatened state to take pre-emptive action in the face of imminent attack, but not to use force preventively against longer term threats. The Panel would broaden that interpretation to allow the preventive use of force in some instances, but only if approved by the Security Council.
The Security Council would judge the legitimacy of such action by whether it met the age-old criteria of just war: The seriousness of the threat, the purpose of the response, whether force is a last resort, whether it is used in a proportionate way and whether there is a reasonable balance of good and bad consequences. In that sense, President Bush won half his argument: Preventive force can be justified, but not unilaterally. Afghanistan would fit; Iraq would not.
Critics complain that this approach places too much trust in a Security Council that can be paralyzed by politics and the veto. Enlarging the Council could make maters worse. A state threatened by terrorist attacks originating in another state might feel less patient than a majority of the Council about what is the "last resort." In Rwanda and Kosovo, the Security Council failed to act in time to save thousands of lives. Is there an alternative to waiting for the Security Council and acting unilaterally?
Kosovo and Iraq provide instructive examples. In the former, the prospect of a Security Council veto prevented action, and a regional organization (NATO) acted without UN authorization. Although this called the legality of the action into question, the intervention benefited from a widespread sense of political legitimacy that limited its negative effects on international order.
In the case of the Iraq War, President Bush never established a broad consensus that might have provided legitimacy in the face of a veto. Countries such as France and Germany that opposed action in Iraq were willing to use force in Kosovo despite the absence of Security Council authorization. If states feel compelled to act in the case of Council stalemate, they should know that they would do less damage to their reputations if they act within the Panel's guidelines for legitimacy, even if they fail to satisfy its criterion for legality.
No single report can create a more secure world, but those who support that goal must hope that governments and their publics will consider seriously the Panel's recommendations.
Joseph Nye is a Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard and author of The Power Game: A Washington Novel. Copyright: Project Syndicate, December 2004.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under