The discordant nature of the post-Cold War world is breaking through into the house of world government, writes Ayman El-Amir The continuing debate over reform of the United Nations has not demonstrated a shared vision of the future but rather a widening gap between Western powers and developing nations. "We the Peoples of the United Nations" who resolved, 60 years ago, to shield future generations from the scourge of war and forge higher standards of living in larger freedom now look at international issues through different lenses. Divergent perceptions, 15 years after the end of the Cold War and thus not attributable to it, may signal the beginning of a rebellious, heterogeneous era within the UN. It is more than a matter of priorities. For example, led by the United States, dominant powers view terrorism in absolute terms and want the General Assembly to agree on a comprehensive framework for an international convention against it. Developing countries, many of whom have also suffered terrorism, are loath to accept signed and sealed generalisations that would lump national liberation movements fighting for independence or resisting foreign occupation with acts of criminal destruction. Rather, they want the root causes of "terrorism" identified, from extreme poverty, political oppression and violations of human rights to economic and social exclusion. It was from this perspective that the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change viewed the "interconnectiveness of contemporary threats to our security". It is why a comprehensive and balanced definition of terrorism, without which no international laws can be agreed, has evaded the UN for decades. Nothing has shown the disparity of priorities more vividly than the contrast between the Security Council meeting on terrorism and the Outcome Declaration of the General Assembly last month. The declaration did not have the same tone of urgency or specific targets with regards to other pressing universal issues topped by poverty, development, Security Council reform, HIV/AIDS and the entire gamut of the Millennium Development Goals adopted by a similar gathering of world leaders in 2000. As a matter of record, governments who signed off on those pledges have already failed to meet the major target of achieving equity for girls and boys in primary education by 2005. In 2000, some 104 million children worldwide were not enrolled in primary education and 57 per cent of them were girls. In addition, governments committed themselves to halve extreme poverty and hunger (27.9 per cent of world population), cut child mortality by two-thirds and ensure basic education for all children by 2015. After one-third of the span of time assigned to achieve those goals has passed, only marginal progress has been made. To date, the Monterrey Consensus, pledging 0.7 per cent of GDPs to Official Development Assistance to poorer countries, remains unfulfilled while the US reiterates every now and then that it never committed itself to this consensus anyway. In the words of one disappointed NGO representative, Charles Abugre of Christian Aid, "it is hard to believe that the cry for justice issued by anti-poverty campaigners across the world earlier this year has fallen on such deaf ears. Never was there such a chance to improve the lives of millions; never was there such a mean-spirited and self-interested response from the rich and the powerful." Disparity does not stop at the question of how much should the wealthy give to the poor but extends farther to questions of common interest to mankind such as disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. As the big powers continue to develop and refine new weapon systems, including nuclear capabilities, they bear down selectively on other non-members of the nuclear club to prevent their access to nuclear technology. Israel, Pakistan, India and Brazil are spared such scrutiny. No wonder that this cynical approach is breeding a new generation of rebellious states that are defying what they see as nuclear blackmail from dominant powers and their allies. India, a nuclear- armed power, has recently been taken off the US boycott list, while Iran, a hard-nosed political rebel, is being dragged to the Security Council over alleged nuclear ambitions. There was a time when the developing world wielded more power and influence through a shared vision of group interests and political coalitions. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and China, along with regional groups, coordinated their actions and projected their will on the international scene forcefully. Since the end of the Cold War, these groups were individually polarised and collectively compromised. In a global environment where the poor are getting poorer, the rich richer, the powerful bullying the weak, international legality flouted, unilateral military force unchecked, and all is controlled by a single, self-righteous superpower, turmoil in the most important international forum for conciliation, the United Nations, is only a matter of time.
