|
|
Home
|
UN REFORM : THE VIEW FROM SWITZERLAND |
|
|
|
By Colum de Sales Murphy
As a non-Swiss I am in no way qualified or mandated to speak of the
views of Switzerland. The view of UN Reform from Switzerland, however,
is illuminating.
Geneva is without doubt, as we like to say at our university, the most
diplomatic neighbourhood on the planet: no less than 190 international
organizations, government and non-governmental, in addition to the
diplomatic missions, are in Geneva. The heart of them, still in its
mostly fascist-era architecture, is the United Nations - now largely
housed in the old League of Nations buildings. Across the road from
where I live, in Bursinel, Churchill in 1946 wrote his United States of
Europe speech for delivery in Zurich. From this vantage point, it’s
easy to look backwards and forwards at the same time.
Close your eyes and cast yourself back a little in time. Something called The Great War has recently ended. So unbelievable was it that it is easy to now call it, hopefully, The War To End All Wars. And all round you now, that hammering and banging you hear represents the construction of something new called The League of Nations. The trees they are planting look small but fresh and promising. The institution that Churchill called “ a milestone in the hard march of man” is taking shape around you. Beneath you, the lake and the Alps look pristine and shimmering in the sun.
Now open you eyes and flash forward to the 21st century. This building you are in is apparently called something about Nations being United. The buildings still look 1930s but on the manicured lawns and pathways those “League trees” now are taller, more mature. Around you discussions are going on about something called “human rights” and whether something called the “Security Council” should have more seats from something called the “European Union”. There is talk of a thing called UN Reform - and you are expected to have a position. It’s all too much. Best take a day off from the culture shock, go for a swim in the (slightly more polluted) lake, take a walk in the vineyards. And then take stock.
With all those new international organizations now extant, clearly impressive progress has been made. They apparently deal with extraordinary subjects such as “international telecommunications”, “refugees”, “world health”, something called “the environment” and a host of other issues. But with so much progress, why then do you feel a sense of déjà vu? And why that premonition that makes you feel distinctly uneasy about the future. Some primitive memory, or warning, seems about to surface. At the back of your mind a darker political instinct on larger issues of war and peace seems a warning. In the new/old air hangs something insistent and unresolved.
2.
But listen! A debate is going on. Apparently, something called the “Human Rights Commission” was disbanded and replaced with something called the “UN Human Rights Council”. Delegates have been coming and going all these weeks, full of curiosity and novel ideas. But now you hear that this new Council is likely to be (nearly) as political as that old Commission. As a governmental body how could the Council be otherwise? From those who track “human rights matters” you hear that this new body is about 7% less political than the old one: a slightly lesser number of villains and human rights violators are now members, sitting in judgement on others.
The United States, you are told, is not a member of the new body but is active behind the scenes - it may join later. From your vantage point you well remember not only the heroic efforts of President Wilson in constructing the League of Nations but his failure to convince Congress to bring the US itself into the League. The sense of déjà vu is disquieting. And now apparently, this United Nations is itself under pressure to reform. You are asked what role the “European Union” should play, how the “Security Council” should be enlarged and what should be the role of something called “European peacekeeping troops” . Another cold swim in the lake is required to clear the head!
Alright! With that achieved a tingling and cold sense of clarity emerges. It’s clear that a very great deal of progress has been made in this business of international organizing. This fresh perspective however largely focuses on pace. “Civilization” H.G. Wells once wrote, “is a race between education and catastrophe”. The snap-shot from Geneva shows a clear picture of a mixed message - much social and economic progress and dangerously less political achievement. Still, the progress of this new European Union they talk about has clearly been dramatic. Some day, a distant day in the future, the EU may indeed hold a single seat in the Security Council. But for the moment the permanent seats and vetoes of Britain and France are not likely to be yielded up.
Still, precisely because the Great Powers are so attached to “their” Security Council there is on-going consensus that European troops, like everyone else, need a UN mandate before taking the field. Once again, as with the League (déjà vu !), the key player is the United States. This being Geneva, however, your memories tell you that those who now call for UN Reform must not only do the calling. They must also fully engage, show the way, and Lead. Show by their own example and commitment to human rights, to international law, to compliance, to collective security, to peace-building in an ever flatter but still more dangerous world that the League failure will not be repeated.
3.
Because what you yourself notice - after your brief time-travel, culture shock and cold water bathe - is, from many countries, the continuing lack of respect for compliance. What’s new to you - in your time capsule - is that new conflicts erupt in unheard of places. Or that the future is Chinese or Indian because of something called “globalization” But, even in a flatter world, there remains that disquieting déjà vu. Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. In the context of “UN Reform” what is clear is that new attitudes are still needed.
The UN now needs far-sighted entrepreneurial leadership. If they were alive today, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt might well say that the UN needs nothing less than a New Deal. And Republican Abraham Lincoln might ask whether this Union (of Nations) can long endure, a new organization “conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men (and women) are created equal”. Winston Churchill would want to press on with “the hard march of man”. But each leader would be determined, surely, that the millions tragically killed in war - inspiration for the creation of international political organizations - have not died in vain.
As for Europe and its allies, there is still a need - as President Kennedy might say - to “ask not what the United Nations can do for you. Ask what you can do for the United Nations”.
Colum de Sales Murphy is the founder and President of the
Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations
|
|
Quotes
Reviewing "Aza Beast" in Foreign Affairs (Jan/Feb. 2005), Harvard's Stanley Hoffmann wrote: "This memoir is valuable both as a portrait of a deeply moral man in an awful situation and as an account of the sufferings of the Bosnians ... Murphy's sense of right and wrong, his distaste for "realist" justifications of inaction, and his concern for the victims of war gives this volume its glow and its emotional power"
|
