Time for Reform
By Gunter Hofmann
United Nations: the international
community wants to modernize its organization
Let’s not talk about the chances. It is
still impossible to tell whether the German Federal Government’s wish to obtain a
permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council has any chance of success in the
course of major UN reform backed by all member states. The decision on this will not be
taken at the beginning of December, when Kofi Annan’s working group presents its
proposals, but during the course of the coming year at the earliest. In this context, it
should also be remembered that for many years it had been customary not only for Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer’s party, the Greens, but also the ruling Social Democrats to
call for a "European seat". For that reason alone, clarification is needed as to
why the committed "Europeans" Fischer and Schröder are now adopting a position
that had previously been pursued for many years to no avail. Has interest in a
"European seat" evaporated and have the chances of a German seat increased?
Two-thirds of the 191 votes need to be won in
a ballot of the United Nations, but they are by no means certain, despite earnest
behind-the-scenes lobbying by the Germans in support of their cause. UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan has let it be known that he approves. The United States is neutral in public,
but has been reticent. The idea is also challenged by some European neighbours – most
vociferously in Italy.
New German self-image
The German foreign minister explained the
principles involved before the 59th General Assembly in New York in September 2004.
Economic, technological and ecological globalization cannot be mastered without close
cooperation. "What we need is a far-reaching reform of the international system and
its institutions that takes due account of these changes." That is the purpose of the
planned UN reform. Fischer also made clear the extent to which the role and self-image of
Germany had changed since the turning points that came with the fall of the Wall in 1989
and reunification in 1990, and then again following the war in Kosovo and September 11,
2001. Germany now sees itself compelled to respond to international problems much more
than in the past. The borders of Europe are almost gone and, in the appraisal of Defence
Minister Peter Struck, German interests are now also at stake in the Hindu Kush. Iraq, as
the country is currently learning, is very near to us, and militant Islamism represents a
problem in Europe as a potential hotbed of dangers. So much for the psychological and
political priorities as they exist today.
Recently, on October 21st, the former
research director of the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), Professor Karl
Kaiser, one of Schröder’s close advisers, presented a detailed justification of the
German claim in the International Herald Tribune. Firstly, he explained, permanent members
should make a notable contribution – in the form of money and troops – to the
maintenance of peace and security. However, in its current composition – China,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – the Security Council no
longer reflects the true ranking of those that contribute most to the United Nations.
Germany and Japan actually make a larger contribution towards a functioning global
organization than four out of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Secondly, Kaiser argued, today’s world is not adequately represented by a Security
Council in which the victor nations of the Second World War set the tone. He considers it
particularly important that the new "permanent members" include non-nuclear
powers in light of the growing importance of the problem of lending greater legitimacy to
the prevention of the further spread of nuclear weapons.
Third largest contributor
The argument goes that a permanent seat for
Germany, the UN’s third largest contributor, would also commit it to greater
continuous responsibility from which it could no longer shrink. It would entail a kind of
commitment to become even more strongly involved on the international stage – not
only in military terms, but also in the Southern hemisphere, in trade and agricultural
policy. Yet, in fact, the German government is already able to lay claim to a respectable
foreign policy record: German policy is concentrating on civilian reconstruction projects
not only in the Balkans and in Kabul, but also in the countries of Africa, on the fringes
of the former Soviet empire and on the shores of the Baltic. The number of Bundeswehr
soldiers involved in peacekeeping missions abroad – something that would have been
inconceivable only a few years ago – exceeds the contingents of all alliance partners
with the exception of the US armed forces. That is also fundamentally acknowledged by
Washington. Viewed from this perspective, the debate about the "German role" is
therefore primarily one about the "internationalization" of German policy.
Reflecting the new global situation
Berlin has combined its efforts with three
other aspirants: Brazil, India and Japan. All four countries are united by their desire
that the United Nations should more closely reflect the new global situation, because only
then will it have the necessary legitimacy to intervene when the need arises. All four
will have expected not to be welcomed with open arms, especially not in the case of
neighbours, but also to be met with distrust. Yet, nonetheless, a unifying element has
unexpectedly come to the fore: namely, the discernible wish that multilateralism and
global cooperation should assert themselves more strongly. In that respect, however,
almost all, whether candidates for a New York seat or not, are in the same boat, and
Germany finds itself clearly on the side of those that want to see a stronger UN as part
of the search for a new world order.
The global organization, in the opinion of
the German government coalition, does not reflect in an even partially equitable way
either the post-colonial world, or the world following the end of the inter-system
conflict in 1989, or the growing need for global cooperation. Yet, this confrontation of
systems determined everything. Now, in the era of globalization, a more modern, more
problem-based organization is urgently needed in its place. In any event, as a result of
its commitment to "effective multilateralism" the German Federal Government has
made its fundamental attitude clear, and with this stance it has underpinned its position
within the UN – totally independently of the Security Council question.
Today, on the world stage, the Germans are by
no means perceived as "nationalists", but as Europeans – probably even as
the most European Europeans – and also as a nation that is convinced, together with
the vast majority of the UN, that the world has and must have a large number of poles and
centres of power – even if only the United States possesses the strength and military
might that the United Nations needs to be truly effective.
A European seat?
However, one very legitimate question remains
here. Why does the government in Berlin no longer emphatically support its old idea of a
"European seat"? After all, that would fit in with the entire logic of German
policy and particularly the outlook of this coalition. In fact, both the federal
chancellor and his foreign minister continue to uphold the idea in principle, but argue
that it has simply become unrealistic to expect to realize this goal in the foreseeable
future. The reason for this is plainly obvious: France and the United Kingdom have no
intention of relinquishing their rights as permanent members to realize this goal. In
fact, however, creating a European seat alongside these two existing seats would give rise
to more questions than could currently be answered – for example, what would happen
if the EU were unable to agree a common position on a specific issue. Furthermore, two or
more EU countries currently present themselves for election as non-permanent members of
the Security Council every two years. It is by no means certain that these countries would
be willing to forego the opportunity to make their own mark in favour of a joint European
seat. Even if all these obstacles were eventually overcome, we would still have to answer
the question of whether the EU – with its diverse contributions to the goals of the
United Nations – would be adequately represented by only one out of 24 to 25 seats on
a future Security Council.
Greater legitimacy through reform
For these reasons, it is not really a case of
having just two alternatives – a choice between either a German or a European seat. A
permanent German seat also makes sense as part of a "European bench" on the
Security Council from which European positions could be represented in an effective way.
Indisputably, however, Europe only acquires real weight – both in its dealings with
the United States and on the UN stage – when it presents a common position. And joint
representation of this kind cannot be replaced by three "western Europeans" on
the Security Council. In future, according to Article 206 of the draft EU constitution,
which was signed by the 25 member states on October 29th in Rome, the European minister
for foreign affairs shall at least be asked to present the position of the European Union
to the Security Council. That was the lowest level on which it was possible to reach
agreement and it is certainly not insignificant. The next step, a "European
seat", is not envisaged here, and it will remain unattainable for the foreseeable
future.
But let’s return to the main issue, the
general reform of the United Nations that Kofi Annan is seeking. Certainly, the Germans
are on the side of those who want to see more far-reaching UN reform. And that involves
accomplishing more than just making the system more efficient – in other words,
streamlining and updating it. Annan has already implemented several measures here that
introduce a modern management culture, but even this goal will not be easy to achieve
– partly because a world machine, which is now circled by thousands of mini-planets,
cannot be managed like a small private business, and partly because the egoisms of the 191
members can never be totally held in check. It is likely to be relatively simple to
implement ideas such as shortening the sessions of the General Assembly or limiting the
duration of all new mandates to ensure that endless parallel projects do not become
ensconced.
The "reformers" believe that the
goal of according the UN greater legitimacy, and with it greater weight, can only be
accomplished if the General Assembly first receives greater authority and the Security
Council is then strengthened as a result. This would be possible, for example, if the
General Assembly were given the right to vote on the basis of two-thirds majorities and
the veto rights of the five permanent members were suspended. However, the prospects of
success can already be measured in terms of the latter point, the veto rights of 5 out of
191, which the US Senate and the former Soviet Union made a conditio sine qua non when the
UN was founded.
Consideration is also being given to ways of
ensuring that those whose misconduct is supposed to be investigated cannot end up sitting
in UN human rights organizations making judgements about themselves. The idea of making
the General Assembly’s countless resolutions more binding appears almost impossible
to put into practice despite its large number of supporters. Despite all the differences
in interests concerning how we represent ourselves and Europe in New York, one remarkable
European commonality remains nonetheless: Berlin, Paris and London, indeed the vast
majority of European governments, are united by the idea that in a world with many centres
and poles the United Nations should become the heart and home of a new multilateralism
following the end of the inter-system conflict.
(Text Courtesy: Deutschland Magazine,
Embassy of Germany, Kathmandu) |
