The
toothless United Nations must seize this last chance to save itself
Mary Dejevsky
As
the new UN secretary general, António Guterres must make the
security council matter again – we need it more than ever
Thursday 29 December
2016 07.00 GMT
As the Syrian
government and its backers tighten their grip on Aleppo, and Turkey
and Russia reveal yet another ceasefire in Syria, the same questions
trouble many an outraged onlooker. Has the United Nations ever seemed
more toothless than it does now? Why did this congregation of almost
200 countries lack the power first to prevent, and then to halt, such
civilian bloodshed? Why had it been unable to convene all the parties
around the same table to any productive end? And if the UN is
incapable of acting in a crisis such as this, what is the point of
it?
António Guterres
takes over as the new secretary general of the UN on Sunday at a time
when the international organisation’s reputation is, at least from
the perspective of many western countries, as low as it has ever
been. The hopes that were invested in this successor to the failed
League of Nations seem to have been dashed at the very time when they
mattered most – and not for the first time. Is the former
Portuguese prime minister someone who can show that the organisation
has a mission that can work?
It is a good deal
easier to forecast failure than success. After all, successes for the
UN in recent years have been few and far between. Much of the
peace-brokering, such as it is, has been accomplished by others,
including the US and – yes – the much-maligned EU.
And while there are
many who blame the outgoing secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the
UN’s lacklustre performance during his two five-year terms, this
would not be entirely fair. Ban’s appointment was in large part a
reaction to the perceived mismatch of profile and achievement on the
part of the previous incumbent, Kofi Annan. Not only was it Asia’s
turn to provide the new secretary general, but there was a widespread
feeling that a less frenetic and more discreet approach might bring
less discord and more results.
If that was the job
description, Ban certainly met the brief. So discreet a presence was
he, however, that the UN, on his watch, seemed almost to fade from
view. Specific failures of other UN branches – the cholera brought
to Haiti during the earthquake relief operation; the disastrously
late response to the west African ebola epidemic; the UN refugee
agency’s non-appearance during Europe’s refugee crisis – all
reinforced the impression of an “international community” with
neither the will nor the capacity to cope.
Then came Syria,
which defeated not one, but two of the UN’s most accomplished
diplomats, first Annan then Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi. Staffan de
Mistura, the Italian-Swedish diplomat, deserves more credit than he
has been given, not least for his steadying presence, but much of the
heavy lifting was undertaken by the old cold war pairing of the US
and Russia – ultimately to little effect.
All of which helps
to explain why, as Ban completed his farewell calls, it was not just
his own near traceless tenure that came in for criticism, but the
UN’s long-term record in general. Perhaps the time for a world body
had simply passed. Such criticism, however, ignores the crucial fact:
the UN is no more and no less than the 193 countries that belong to
it. It is not the independent arbiter many assume it to be, and
conflicts – especially once there has been resort to arms – are
not simple to resolve. Civil wars, with or without outside
involvement, are especially intractable – as in Syria.
The UN has a second
chance to come into its own. But it must think in terms of the
politics of 2045 rather than 1945
The collapse of the
Soviet Union had spurred hopes for a more consensual security council
that would be less inhibited about acting. Twenty-five years on,
though, it is clear that it is not only the enduring cold war legacy
that stands in the way of agreement at the top of the UN. There is
the newer north-south dimension, the old smattering of colonial
grievances, but most of all some genuinely irreconcilable territorial
and cultural interests.
It might be tempting
to propose that the UN should just give up and leave the field. As of
now, however, that looks a much worse idea than pressing on. One
reason is the new secretary general. Guterres has the record and
personal energy that could just put the UN back on to the global
diplomatic map. Another is the new US president. If Donald Trump is
serious about downgrading US internationalism, this could leave a gap
that the UN would be equipped to fill – perhaps even with US
blessing.
A third reason,
though, is the most compelling. Even before Trump, the world was
already becoming a more contested place, with China fast becoming an
assertive new player, India snapping at its heels, and the Middle
East conflict entailing much more than Israel-Palestine.
Just as the G20 has
largely superseded the G7 for economic discussions, so the UN, with
its worldwide membership, has a second chance to come into its own.
It will need to be less hierarchical, in line with the flatter
organisational structures favoured today. It should perhaps have its
own standing security force (to be deployed only by consent). Above
all, it will have to think in terms of the politics and demography of
2045, rather than 1945.
Whether any of this
can happen will rest to a large extent with Guterres. But if, as it
would appear, the diplomacy of tomorrow is likely to be more
multilateral than it is today, the UN should be an idea whose time
has come rather than gone.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário