If it is Broke, Time to Fix it - the UN at 73
The United Nations may not be completely broken, but it has a checkered peacekeeping record. A stifling bureaucracy married with Cold War alignment instead of current geopolitical reality has created an organization which has limited its efficiency and effectiveness. The days of state-on-state conventional and large scale warfare has been effectively minimized. Instead civil wars, tribal and sectarian conflict, and terrorism are the current major threats to the world order. The UN has been slow to adapt to these new threats and their enduring consequence, such as the refugee crisis caused by instability in the Levant due to the effects of the Syrian civil war.
The primary purpose of the UN, as described in the Charter, is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."
During the Cold War, when the world was divided into American and Soviet spheres of influence, the UN was the brake to escalating tensions. During that time the Security Council was stymied by the both super powers but at least there was a level of accountability since many of the conflicts throughout the 20th century was state on state violence. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, have we seen a rise of intra-state conflict created by non-state actors.
With emerging threats reshaping the geopolitical landscape, the UN structure is definitely too unwieldy, bureaucratic, and outdated. Even though warfare is now more nimble and more internal to a nation-state, the UN structure is still in controlled by the victors of World War II. New threats and their consequences highlight the UN's limited ability to address on-going intrastate conflicts.
It is past time for the world community to accept the hard truth: the UN is too unwieldy and stuck in a Cold War paradigm. World security is no longer in the hands of the World War II victors and the geopolitical sphere is significantly more complex. Frankly speaking, the five permanent members of the Security Council's influence is uneven and is subject to internal political sentiment. France and the United Kingdom are no longer the colonial world powers that once were and the United Kingdom has become more internally focused as seen by BREXIT. Russia creates havoc in its former sphere of influence and tries to project itself as the new Soviet Union but instead it is grasping at imperial straws and setting itself up as an alternative to the United States, without all of the human rights and democratic requirements. The United States, under the Obama and Trump administrations has abdicated its role as a world leader and responsibilities to maintain liberal, free trade norms established in the post World War II years. Finally, China's assent has increased tension in Southwest Asia. It is grasping to become the next great world power with interests in securing natural resources without any strings attached.
So what needs to be done? There have been various studies conducted recommending UN management reform. Many of these ideas are fully developed and worth running to the ground. Instead, I am looking at UN operational reform. It should be a priority for an internal audit of the UN mission, and, if necessary, modified to focus specifically on the maintenance of international peace and security in the current geopolitical environment. Corollary issues that feed into the maintenance of international peace and security but are not core to the UN mission should be identified and addressed. Here are my ideas on UN operational reform:
The primary purpose of the UN, as described in the Charter, is "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace..."
During the Cold War, when the world was divided into American and Soviet spheres of influence, the UN was the brake to escalating tensions. During that time the Security Council was stymied by the both super powers but at least there was a level of accountability since many of the conflicts throughout the 20th century was state on state violence. It was not until the fall of the Berlin Wall and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, have we seen a rise of intra-state conflict created by non-state actors.
With emerging threats reshaping the geopolitical landscape, the UN structure is definitely too unwieldy, bureaucratic, and outdated. Even though warfare is now more nimble and more internal to a nation-state, the UN structure is still in controlled by the victors of World War II. New threats and their consequences highlight the UN's limited ability to address on-going intrastate conflicts.
It is past time for the world community to accept the hard truth: the UN is too unwieldy and stuck in a Cold War paradigm. World security is no longer in the hands of the World War II victors and the geopolitical sphere is significantly more complex. Frankly speaking, the five permanent members of the Security Council's influence is uneven and is subject to internal political sentiment. France and the United Kingdom are no longer the colonial world powers that once were and the United Kingdom has become more internally focused as seen by BREXIT. Russia creates havoc in its former sphere of influence and tries to project itself as the new Soviet Union but instead it is grasping at imperial straws and setting itself up as an alternative to the United States, without all of the human rights and democratic requirements. The United States, under the Obama and Trump administrations has abdicated its role as a world leader and responsibilities to maintain liberal, free trade norms established in the post World War II years. Finally, China's assent has increased tension in Southwest Asia. It is grasping to become the next great world power with interests in securing natural resources without any strings attached.
So what needs to be done? There have been various studies conducted recommending UN management reform. Many of these ideas are fully developed and worth running to the ground. Instead, I am looking at UN operational reform. It should be a priority for an internal audit of the UN mission, and, if necessary, modified to focus specifically on the maintenance of international peace and security in the current geopolitical environment. Corollary issues that feed into the maintenance of international peace and security but are not core to the UN mission should be identified and addressed. Here are my ideas on UN operational reform:
- Spin off special agencies which are tangential to the UN mission, such as: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, United Nations Population Fund, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, etc., as their own international non-governmental organization(s). At times there will be a need to collaborate with these agencies but they draw funding and political will away from peacekeeping and conflict management.
- Change the composition of the Security Council. The five permanent member construct is obsolete and does not accurately reflect the current geopolitical reality. Currently there are 15 members, the five permanent members and ten non-permanent members. Instead the Security Council could be expanded to 25 members, rotating on a 4 year basis and including a cross segment of countries (differing economic levels, different continents, etc.). This allows for hard, honest, and open debate on potential peacekeeping missions, to include pros and cons of a peacekeeping mission. A decision to mobilize and deploy forces could proceed with a super-majority of affirmative votes (20/25) so critical deployments can proceed without being hijacked/stymied by a permanent member of the Security Council.
- Establish a "peacekeeping academy" which brings together diplomats, aid workers, development organizations, and military members to train in uniform peacekeeping standards. Any Country's military would have to be certified prior to deployment.
- Move the UN out of New York City. To some the UN is a U.S. proxy or within segments of the U.S., the UN is a threat to U.S. sovereignty. It would be better for the UN to be located in a country seen as neutral, like Switzerland, Malta, Vatican City, or Costa Rica to name a few.
- Modify the Chapter 7 peacekeeping mandate. Instead of having a separate Chapter 6 mandate (settle conflicts by peaceful means, including negotiation, mediation and confidence building measures) and a Chapter 7 mandate (peace enforcement), the UN should modify and subsume Chapter 6 into Chapter 7. This allows for greater operational flexibility decided by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the senior UN representative in the country. It does not need to be an either/or scenario but instead a full set of tools at the UN's fingertips.
- This will probably be an unpopular sentiment but let's be real. The UN should contract with Private Military Companies to provide support, especially in logistics and rotary wing aviation. UN missions scramble for assets and continually fall short militarily. Many countries which provide military support have limited capabilities and a dearth of equipment, particularly aviation assets. Rotary wing assets are critical in many peacekeeping operations, as a basis for humanitarian aid support or to insert a quick reaction force. Not having a robust aviation presence limits or delays humanitarian and peacekeeping assistance in austere environments.
- Establish a military tribunal to prosecute crimes committed by peacekeepers. If a country provides military as part of a peacekeeping mission then they should be subjected to international law and justice. This step will also address some of the criticism leveled against UN peacekeeping missions of late.
Comments
Post a Comment