Former UN Secretary-General of the UN Boutros Boutros Ghali presented a gloomy picture of the organisation's future in light of the recent past, Willa Thayer listened to the prognosis With the spectre of a major war just around the corner, this should be the United Nations's big moment. However, if former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali's observations on the current international balance of power and attendant marginalisation of the UN are anything to go by, the multilateral body will probably not be able to rise to the occasion. Ghali's insights came within the context of a panel discussion hosted by the Al-Ahram Regional Press Institute on Monday, entitled "The Future of the United Nations in a Changing World". Ghali, who led the UN from 1992-1996 and made way for the new head of La Francophonie just days ago, was joined by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Fayza Abul-Naga. Egypt's top diplomats presented their views on the topics Ghali addressed in his lecture and participated in responding to audience questions. The event was attended by some 100 editors, including Al-Ahram Editor-in- Chief Ibrahim Nafie, journalists, political scientists, diplomats and members of the general public. Ghali opened his discussion with the UN's return to the spotlight in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. "When the attacks against New York and Washington occurred, the United States turned to the United Nations, meaning that it requested the support of the international community. The UN issued its first resolution [after the attacks] on 12 September, unanimously approving it. The Security Council resolution supported the American superpower in confronting aggression. The implication was that the international community had given its proxy to the United States, and two days later, the United States paid, in full, its arrears to the United Nations." The roots of US domination of the UN are deeper than 9/11, and can be linked, Ghali said, to a tendency towards unilateralism, which became clear in the aftermath of the Cold War. "Following a war, a conference is usually held to explore the new situation at the end of the conflict," Ghali said, referring to gatherings following the Napoleonic Wars and the first and second World Wars. "No conference was convoked after the end of the Cold War." Not only was the US the "victor" in that war, emerging as the sole superpower, but it moved firmly away from multilateralism. "The US, in my opinion, was convinced that it did not need allies to take charge of matters of international relations after the end of the Cold War," Ghali opined. Consequently, "Europe lost its importance for the US. And Europe, for its part, has not been as interested in international affairs, focusing instead on European unity," he said, pointing to the decline in the defence budgets of major European countries as indicative of this change in view. Ghali described Europe's retreat from the international sphere as "a grave phenomenon, because many Third World countries, including many Arab countries, continue to hope that Europe will be able to play a role in, for instance, solving the Middle East situation or other matters." And as Europe looked inward, the US has had a freer rein in terms of its unilateralist tendencies, one aspect of which was "using the UN as a tool when it could serve its interests", but otherwise distancing itself from the organisation. Concurrent with this trend, the UN began to flag in some key respects. "Economic cooperation and economic development have moved from being the prerogative of the UN to being that of the World Bank, the IMF [International Monetary Fund] and the WTO [World Trade Organisation]," Ghali said. Accordingly, the UN Economic and Social Council has been reduced to a body "through which countries receiving aid can do no more than express their hopes and dreams". Parallel to this, the United Nations Development Programme has seen its budget reduced by 50 per cent, the former secretary-general said, as well as a shift away from aid based on the rationale that private investment is sufficient to spur development. Peace-keeping is another area UN activity for which it is difficult to muster enthusiasm. "While there are still peace- keeping operations in the Congo, [East] Timor, the Golan Heights and Cyprus, the number of troops deployed is fewer than in the past, currently standing at 24,000 with a budget of $2.5 billion a year. The number of troops posted around the world by the UN is far less than that of NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organisation] soldiers in Yugoslavia," Ghali noted. There are changes in the composition of such forces, too. "UN peace-keeping forces now come almost exclusively from the armies of developing countries. Advanced countries -- the US included -- are not participating in UN peace-keeping forces. This represents a new and serious division whereby UN peace-keeping forces are from developing countries, and NATO peace-keeping detachments from the advanced ones." The solution to fettering the US and reinvigourating the UN is one and the same: the engagement or re- engangement of powerful countries in international politics. Outlining the view that Europe may again look outward (although taking issue with it), having adopted a single currency, and moving swiftly in other areas of unification, Ghali turned to the young Turks around the world. India is currently preoccupied with Pakistan; Latin American countries like Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, while having the economic capacities to play a larger role internationally, lack the political will. Currently, China is not much of a contender: while it does have the economic capacity it neither has the political will for nor traditions of engaging in international affairs. Perhaps most germane, though, is its preoccupation with Taiwan. Nonetheless, Ghali suggested that in another 20 or 30 years it might take a more active role. The former UN head's remarks on Russia suggest that we should not be surprised if it decides to come back for more, having as it does a long history of international involvement that precedes Communism, not to mention considerable political will with respect to being an international player. The theme of power as a corrupting force was apparent in Ghali and Fayza Abul-Naga's remarks. "From the only to the lonely", was how Ghali put it, warning that unilateralism has the potential to lead to isolation. Abul-Naga's formulation, "absolute power is not enduring power", casts the focus back potential partners in multilateralism. It was left, then, to Ahmed Maher, to remind the audience that while the UN perhaps "doesn't have teeth", its various organisations play important roles in diverse areas of life such as agriculture, medicine and education, just to name a few. In the international political arena, too, its importance should not be underestimated. After all, it is UN resolutions that countries turn to when they negotiate their positions in instances of conflict or take those disputes before a court.
