RETHINKING THE U.N.

 Editorial de  “The Washington Post” del 21-9-03

At a time when the Bush administration appears to be slowly, painfully and not entirely successfully returning to the idea that the United Nations has a role to play in Iraq, it is worth listening hard to the U.N. secretary general, Kofi Annan, who has just presented a paper calling for "radical reform" of the U.N. system. On the one hand, he said -- using unusually frank language for a secretary general -- "repetitive and sterile debates crowd out the items that really matter" in the General Assembly, where all 191 member countries are represented. In the Security Council, by contrast, Mr. Annan believes that "the problem is rather the opposite." Because of its small numbers -- five permanent members and 10 elected members -- the body "lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the developing world." In separate comments, Mr. Annan has hinted at his solution: Let more veto-wielding nations onto the Security Council, possibly including one from the Middle East.

Mr. Annan is right to call for a rethinking, even a "radical reform" of the United Nations' structure. The Security Council's permanent members were, after all, selected according to the balance of power that prevailed in the middle of the 20th century. Neither France nor Britain nor even Russia would necessarily be listed among the world's five most powerful countries today. Reform of the Security Council should be one of that body's top priorities.

It's less clear that Mr. Annan's solution -- or any solution -- would bring about the harmony that he desires. In his paper, Mr. Annan referred to an international "consensus" that has grown weaker over the past few years and to a "climate of cooperation" that had been seriously eroded. This nostalgia is misplaced. In fact, the United Nations, over the half-century of its existence, has never been a model of international cooperation and has never been universally accepted as a "legitimate authority." Although it had some important successes, it was more often a theater of Cold War competition than a place where minds met. For one brief moment, during the Persian Gulf War, the Security Council provided cover for a U.S.-led invasion -- but only because Russia was weak, Europe and the Middle East happened to side with the United States and China didn't care. During the invasion of Kosovo and the subsequent bombardment of Serbia, the United Nations stood aside.

If the Security Council is to be redesigned, "radical reform" should reflect not only the contemporary balance of power but also a more modest assessment of what the United Nations can reasonably be expected to do. With a reorganized structure, the United Nations might be better able to manage other agencies such as the World Health Organization that fill a genuine international need. It might be better set up to oversee the international civil servants who help with postwar reconstruction in places around the world.

But even with different or additional members, the Security Council should not be expected to provide military forces or to establish true security in a combat zone without the help of sovereign armies. Until the very distant day when the nations of the world share values, the United Nations should remain a forum for debate about international security issues and a source of peacekeepers in places where there is already a peace to be kept or a ruined society to help rebuild. It is unfair to expect an organization composed of many states to function well as a decision-making body. Talk of Security Council reform is extremely useful. Talk of true "legitimacy" for the United Nations as world government is utopian.