As the United Nations celebrates its 60th anniversary, people are questioning whether it is up to the task expected of it, Mohamed Sid-Ahmed comments Is the United Nations, whose 60th anniversary was celebrated this week, losing its raison d'être? Founded in the immediate aftermath of World War II, the international organisation reflected the global balance of power in the wake of the Allied victory over the Axis. But while the outcome of a war that took place over half a century ago may have been a valid frame of reference at the time for an organisation whose primary objective is "the maintenance of international peace and security," that is no longer the case. The world is now a very different place, with a whole new set of variables. For example, one of the victorious parties in 1945, the USSR, no longer exists, while two of the defeated parties, Germany and Japan, are economic powerhouses. Since the breakdown of the bipolar world order, an altogether new order has come into being, one that can in no way be assimilated to the world order envisaged in the UN Charter. The need for a different system of global governance is now universally recognised, but efforts to review the post-1945 architecture of the international system and construct a more effective structure of global governance have been sporadic. So far, attempts to streamline the UN, though described as reform, boil down to nothing more than cosmetic changes. The considerations which determine what changes will be introduced to the international system are totally unrelated to the logic of reform or to the need for the UN to revolve in response to changing times. For example, Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council, is categorically opposed to introducing radical changes to the world system because it fears that this would affect its prerogatives, particularly its veto rights, and reduce its freedom of manoeuvre. As to the United States, judging by President Bush's appointment of notorious neo-con John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN, it too seems to be striving to maintain the status quo by undercutting any attempt to introduce much needed radical reforms to the United Nations. It thus appears that neither of the two former superpowers is interested in a comprehensive overhaul of the system. Moving to the countries vanquished in World War II, we find Italy standing firmly against the idea of granting Germany permanent membership status in the Security Council and Germany equally opposed to Japan's inclusion in the exclusive five-member club of veto-wielders. The three countries, which fought on the same side in the war and suffered similar fates, see no reason why any one of them should be privileged over the others. It can thus be seen that the considerations shaping the attitude of states on the issue of reforming the UN are very different from and often contrary to, those determining their political stands in general. Driven by purely nationalistic feelings, the former are clearly at odds with the growing trend towards globalisation in the world today. The final document produced on 14 September by the 2005 World Summit, which brought together the largest assemblage of world leaders ever, is more a declaration of intention than a comprehensive reform package. Even Kofi Annan found it "shameful" that it failed to mention the issues of disarmament and proliferation. The document commits its signatories to "act through the Security Council" against any state that proves unwilling to protect its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing. Precisely what type of action can be taken is deliberately left vague. In fact, the language used is so vague as to lend itself to a variety of interpretations and can be used as much to justify criminal behaviour as to deter it. It was believed that the United Nations would not meet a fate similar to that of its short-lived predecessor, the League of Nations, and that its role as ultimate arbiter of global affairs would never become redundant. Even in the context of new alliances and confrontations or the emergence of altogether new players on the world stage, such as the European Union, its viability was never in question. It was only after the Iraq war that we began to hear that it had become "irrelevant". No one expected the linchpin of world order to experience an existential crisis, a sudden drop in vitality and challenges to its authority and effectiveness. It is clear that the post-World War II system of global governance as embodied in the UN needs to be adjusted in line with the new political realities. Only the introduction of structural reforms can overcome the deep crisis threatening its very existence. One can now imagine international relations between states where the force of attraction between them is weaker than the force of repulsion where these repel each other rather than gravitate towards each other, even if globalisation tends to encourage rapprochement. This is made clear by the advent of wars, of tensions in international relations, of different patterns of development. The Cold War confrontation between two antagonistic blocs of states made for a high level of global tensions, forcing all the players on the world stage to remain vigilant and keeping them more or less in check. With the end of the bipolar world order came a relaxation of tensions and a growing interdependence between states. This fostered an atmosphere of laissez-faireism, which in turn removed many of the constraints which had hitherto kept corruption within reasonable limits. Even the UN, it seems, was not immune to the lure of corruption, even at the highest levels. Although the final declaration of the summit was disappointing, the speech delivered by George Bush to the General Assembly was a welcome surprise. In it, he said that terrorism fed on anger and despair and pledged to help poor countries by cutting subsidies and removing tax barriers on agricultural products. For his part, French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, standing in for ailing President Jacque Chirac, focussed not on poverty and development but on the situation in Iraq and Iran and the need to adopt a firm stand towards Tehran's nuclear ambitions. It seems the two men have switched roles, with Bush adopting a conciliatory line and De Villepin a hardline position. Has Hurricane Katerina jolted Bush out of his complacency? More to the point, can the reform proposals put forward at the summit lead to the rebirth and renewal of the aging UN and, ultimately, to redressing the structural flaws in the world order?
