|
  Sixty years in the aftermath of the most devastating war in human history, a
group of world leaders met in San Francisco to sign a document they hoped would
make the second half of the twentieth century very different from the first.
That document was the United Nations Charter. The birth of the United Nations
came about because these far-sighted leaders understood that the world could
simply no longer afford to continue as it had in the first half of the century -
having witnessed two world wars, countless civil wars, genocide, mass expulsions
of populations, and the horrors of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. So these leaders
drew up rules to govern international behavior and founded institutions in which
nations could cooperate for the common good. The U.N. was pre-eminent among
them.
We are all far better off than in 1945, but sixty years later, criticism is
rife. The divisions in the Security Council over Iraq in 2003 marked a turning
point for the U.N's standing in the world. A Pew Poll taken in 20 countries in
the middle of that year showed that the U.N. had suffered a great deal of
collateral damage over Iraq from both sides of the debate.
The U.N.’s credibility was down in the U.S. because it did not support the
Administration on the war -- and it was down in the 19 other countries because
it could not prevent the war. And since then, the U.N. has reeled from assaults
over its handling of the oil-for-food program, accusations of sexual abuse by
peace-keepers, and attacks from the US Congress, including threats to withhold
dues.
As Secretary-General Kofi Annan told world leaders, we have come to a fork in
the road. One way -- the route marked business as usual – leads to potential
disaster for all humankind. The other option is to review the entire
architecture of the international system that has been built up since 1945, and
renew it to build an effective house of global governance for the twenty-first
century. The divisions over Iraq brought into sharp relief many of the
fundamental questions that have plagued our modern world since the end of the
Cold War: questions about preventive war, about the scourge of terrorism, about
weapons of mass destruction, about intervening when States perpetrate injustices
on their own citizens, and also about the persistent terror of underdevelopment
the combination of poverty, drought, famine and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa
that threatens more lives than Iraq ever did.
On 21 March this year -- appropriately enough, the first day of spring –
Secretary-General Annan offered his suggestions for how the U.N. might be
changed to meet these new challenges in a report titled In Larger Freedom. The
title comes from the preamble to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the
U.N. striving “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger
freedom”. By that magnificent phrase the U.N.’s founders showed that they
understood that development is possible only in conditions of freedom, and that
people only benefit from political freedom when they have at least a fair chance
of a decent standard of living.
The Secretary-General’s proposals tackle all the key challenges: the need for a
new deal on development, debt reduction and fair trade opportunities for poor
countries; a reiteration of the principle of the international communities
responsibility to protect the weak when their own States are unwilling or unable
to do so; an affirmation of the need to agree on a comprehensive legal
convention on terrorism, ending the political debates over its definition; and a
call for wide-ranging institutional reform to create more credible U.N. human
rights mechanisms as well as to bring the Security Council and the General
Assembly into the 21st century.
But the Secretary-General can only recommend; as in San Francisco sixty years
ago, it is up to the governments of the world to take the decisions that can
transform the Organization. As President Harry Truman told the assembled
signatories of the United Nations Charter in 1945: “You have created a great
instrument for peace and security and human progress in the world ... If we fail
to use it, we shall betray all those who have died in order that we might meet
here in freedom and safety to create it. If we seek to use it selfishly for the
advantage of any one nation or any small group of nations we shall be equally
guilty of that betrayal.”
For sixty years we have all reaped the benefits of this conclave in San
Francisco. The U.N.'s existence created the framework within which human
progress was possible during the Cold War and beyond. U.N. peacekeeping, for
instance, prevented local conflicts from igniting a superpower conflagration,
and so helped ensure that the Cold war did not turn hot. More than 170
U.N.-assisted peace settlements have ended regional conflicts. Indeed, with the
U.N.'s help, more civil wars have ended through mediation since the U.N.'s birth
than in the previous two centuries combined.
The more than 300 international treaties negotiated at the U.N. have reduced the
prospect for conflict among sovereign States. The U.N.'s electoral experts have
helped bring or sustain democracy to peoples around the globe, most recently in
Iraq, Palestine and Burundi. The list goes on.
The Golden Gate Bridge was only eight years old in 1945. Many things have
changed in these past sixty years. At the 2005 World Summit, to be held in New
York in September, world leaders will meet to address the Secretary-General’s
proposals. They will have an opportunity to make history again. Let us hope that
they will have the boldness of vision, wisdom, and courage to prove worthy of
what their predecessors accomplished in San Francisco sixty years ago.
  |
