What stands behind Kofi Annan's sweeping UN changes, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed Before UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan went public with his proposed reform package in a speech to the General Assembly last Monday, news of the sweeping changes he recommended introducing to the international organisation was published in The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times. These include the expansion of the Security Council to reflect the new realities of global power, the restructuring of the discredited Human Rights Commission to keep rights violators from becoming members and the adoption of a definition of terror that would end justifying it as an act of national resistance. The leaked report is expected to whet the appetite of a number of states seeking permanent membership status in the Security Council, namely, Germany, Japan, Egypt, India, Brazil and either Nigeria or South Africa, which are certain to support the Secretary-General's proposal to expand the Council's permanent membership base. In fact, they are now the dynamo that can bring about the proposed changes. While there is an objective need to reorganise the United Nations in line with the requirements of a new world order and a new century, or, as Annan put it, "so as to equip and resource it to help it advance the 21st century agenda", another, more personal, need may have prompted this move by the Secretary-General, who has recently come under fire following the disclosure of the oil-for-food corruption scandal in which members of his staff and his businessman son are implicated. He is also under pressure to give a face-lift to the Human Rights Commission of questionable reputation. Annan's proposal to change the configuration of the Security Council to better reflect present day realities is long overdue. It is ridiculous to continue dealing with Germany and Japan as defeated states, which they were when the UN Charter was drafted 60 years ago. Moreover, Russia cannot be regarded as a state which, like its former incarnation as the Soviet Union, has an ideology that is in total opposition to the one adopted by the leading Western states. While enmity between East and West was once the principal contradiction on the world stage, it has now been replaced by the North-South antagonism, and 9/11 was the turning point which highlighted that fundamental change. Moreover, there is no reason to go on classifying nations around the globe according to their geographical distribution. No longer is any country immunised against terrorism. All are equally exposed to the threat. It thus makes more sense for important UN resolutions to be adopted by a two-thirds majority rather than by a specific number of seats for any specific region, thus making it possible for "rogue" states to get key positions. The Security Council is currently composed of five permanent members with veto rights and ten members elected to two-year terms with no veto rights. The most important change proposed by Annan is to add to the Security Council six permanent as well as six non-permanent members for a period of two years. Thus the permanent members will become 11, while the non-permanent will become 16. Veto rights will remain limited to the five original permanent members. Annan is betting on the idea that the driving force of change is the group of six: Germany, Japan, Egypt, India, Brazil and either Nigeria or South Africa. These nations are interested in becoming permanent Security Council members, and also in acquiring veto rights like the original veto- holders. Such a change could also encourage certain non-permanent members to seek permanent membership status, albeit without veto rights. In the final analysis, the main beneficiaries of such a change are likely to be relatively underdeveloped states with huge populations, notably India and China, which, though classified as part of the South, are fast moving to become members of the developed North. It will be interesting to see how they will fit into the North-South confrontation. The pressure for reform at the supra-structural level is matched by calls for societies, particularly Arab societies, to reform themselves internally. This has given rise to an apparent contradiction between the ruling establishment in America, which is pressing for reform in the name of democracy, and homegrown opposition groups inside Arab societies who are also calling, for reform, in the name of democracy. Given the mounting pressure for reform from all sides, the democratic drive is irresistible. But it remains to be seen how the two trends pushing for democracy will interact over the coming period. Will they close ranks against the non-democratic authorities, or will the local pro-democracy groups adopt that "democracy should not be imported from abroad" and that precedence should be given to democracy that emanates from society itself? The American dream for the Middle East is that the two types of democracy -- from within and from without -- will merge. That is what Washington hopes will happen when it brings to an end the Arab-Israeli dispute and creates what it describes as "peace" in the region. The way to impose this merger is to pin the terrorist label on Arab and Islamic regimes that oppose the Pax Americana and refuse to accept that the only viable model of democracy is the American model. Annan defines terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants (and) aimed at intimidating governments, populations or international organisations". This is the first time the international body has attempted to come up with a clear-cut definition of terrorism since 26 nations, led by the US, the UK, the USSR and China, signed the UN Declaration (the precursor of the UN Charter) affirming their union against the axis powers. That is probably because during WWII the Allies, who emerged victorious from the war, regarded armed resistance to Nazi occupation as a sacred duty, even if it entailed killing innocent civilians. But post-war conditions saw the emergence of a new kind of enemy. For the West, the main enemy became communism and national liberation movements that resorted to armed struggle to end the occupation of their lands. This was unacceptable for the West, which considered armed struggle in this case to be not a sacred duty but a form of illegitimate war, especially if the victims were civilians or noncombatants. In the 63-page report outlining his proposals, Annan said: "We must convince all those who may be tempted to support terrorism that it is neither an acceptable nor an effective way to serve their cause. The report also establishes a policy of "zero-tolerance" for sexual exploitation by peace-keepers, a development that Annan said "especially troubled him". Cynics say the report is a bid to shore up his stewardship of the UN in his last two years in office. While he has maintained much of his reputation abroad, he has come under acute criticism in Washington where members of Congress have called for his resignation. Annan has given the North-South confrontation priority over the East-West divide that informed the initial configuration of the United Nations. His report is addressed to centrist forces at the global level who are keen to project an image of moderation. But will Annan's "historical compromise" be acceptable to the United States?
