Body needs restructuring to combat US control, experts say CAIRO: Sixty-one years ago, victors of World War II signed the United Nations Charter and a new global organization arose from the ashes of the defunct League of Nations. The league's inability to peacefully resolve conflicts and prevent the outbreak of yet another world war prompted the creation of another international body. The new body was designed to remedy the failures of its predecessor and would boast a "peace-keeping force provided by the member states that was to prevent further conflict on such a scale in the future. Yet it seems these days that the UN can do nothing right in peoples' eyes. Dismissed as a toothless organization, questions abound concerning its relevance, especially in the area of conflict resolution, the area in which it was specifically designed as a considerable improvement on its predecessor. The problem is that "the UN does not have a will independent of the stronger nations, argues Dr. Bahgat Korany, professor of international relations at the American University in Cairo and a former employee of the UN's European Office. When asked whether the UN is relevant today by The Daily Star Egypt, he said: "Yes and no. Yes it is relevant due to the fact that the problems the UN was created to address still very much exist. The need of the role is still there. "No, because the actual UN we have now hasn't performed efficiently, it needs to be revamped, rejuvenated and the international bureaucracy needs to be reformed. Korany believes as long as the UN is dominated by the US it will not have the autonomy it requires to effectively function as a global body. Part of resolving that impasse would be to give more power to such economic powers as Japan and Germany and also strengthen the efficacy of the General Assembly, perhaps as a counterbalance to the Security Council. "We must democratize the structure and the power of the veto should be limited. If the Security Council cannot reach a resolution, the matter should be taken to the General Assembly, which has previously happened on some occasions. (Also) we could enlarge the membership of the Security Council, he said. Criticism of the way the UN Security Council functions increased dramatically during the first weeks of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Israeli forces and warplanes battered Lebanon for nearly five weeks after two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah militia from southern Lebanon. Despite calls by Arab nations for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, the Security Council failed to act and the fighting did not end until 33 days later. More than 1,200 Lebanese, mostly civilian, were killed and Lebanon suffered more than $5 billion in infrastructure damage according to preliminary reports from the Lebanese government. In Israel, dozens of civilians were killed and injured and several homes and a train station were destroyed by Hezbollah Katyusha rockets. Hassan Abu Taleb, head of the international relations unit at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies says the UN suffers from the way it has been structured, usually succumbing to the wishes of the more powerful nations. "We cannot consider the UN an independent entity, he tells The Daily Star Egypt, "to consider it as such is wrong. In reality, the UN reflects the prevalent international order Abu Taleb says. "It depends on the power states, he adds. "During the Cold War, it reflected that push and pull between the two superpowers. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a uni-polar world dominated by the US, it's natural that the UN reflects this. Prior to the latest Iraq war, there were voices within the US to bypass the UN entirely and to 'go it alone.' Abu Taleb states that any solution depends on US wishes. "The UN cannot restructure internally without US approval, let alone deal with external issues. So any long-term solution depends on a balance of power being restored, i.e. an emergence of another superpower to somewhat restore parity. "The UN does need to reform, says Abu Taleb, "but the important thing is that it will always reflect the current world order. "As this applies to current dominance of the US alone, it is the US that exerts the greatest influence on UN actions. While some countries might be able to curb American action, they cannot control or prevent them; they cannot force the US's hand. In some cases there is balance, but usually the US wins out. The United Nations will be what its members make of it. Due to the machinations of the current world order, the disparity between the influence of various member states leads to an imbalance in the organization, especially in the political arena. The UN is still needed to combat pressing world issues like hunger, displacement, and education. These dire issues must be constantly addressed, but the world body is severely undermined by its own members. In the end, the UN has the potential to be what we want it to be, if we can all agree on what that is.
