News of Norway, issue 8, 1995
While preparations for anniversary celebrations are well under way, the UN is the subject of both praise and criticism. And as a coin has two sides, the UN story embodies success as well as failure. The trick for anyone opening a new chapter in life is to look back and draw lessons for the future without getting stuck in the past.
Inspired by the upcoming anniversary, UN officials along with diplomats, cabinet members, parliament members and concerned citizens all over the world are engaged in an intense debate. They are trying to clarify what lessons to draw from the past and how to adapt the UN to new realities of the post cold-war era.
Looking ahead, the challenges are indeed daunting. Population growth and indiscriminate exploitation of resources threaten the earth's sustainability. Too many people live in poverty, and too few are able to fulfill the dream of living in a democratic society where basic human rights are respected. Even in peaceful corners of the world, a sense of safety and security is threatened by terrorism, ethnic conflicts, drug trafficking and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
This is not to say that the UN has the answer to every question of international significance. Far from it. There are limits to what the UN both can be and what it should handle. First of all, the United Nations can only be a reflection of the collective strength and weaknesses of its member states. Expectations should be based on understanding that a chain is never stronger than its weakest link. Secondly, the UN is only one of many tools available to its 185 sovereign members.
Some issues should be mediated in other global forums, or by regional and sub-regional organizations. The important question is how the UN of the future can concentrate on realistic and achievable objectives in areas where it has a comparative advantage.
A quest for international peace and security was the centerpiece when the UN was established. Today, the situation is very much the same, witness the large number of peace-keeping operations undertaken in the last few years. However, the demands, expectations and challenges facing the UN's peace-keeping capabilities are greater today than ever before.
There is a need to develop and refine the concept of peace-keeping operations as well as to strengthen the organizational structure and capabilities of UN peace-keeping machinery. A clearer understanding is needed of when and how the world body should employ various types of peace operations, whether conflict prevention or peace enforcement or peace keeping per se.
In particular, the value of preventive efforts has been proven beyond any doubt. Preemptive action is infinitely more effective, both in economic and humanitarian terms, than trying to fight a fire already ignited. In the same vein, strengthening the ability to react quickly when a crisis looms is critically important.
Furthermore, the humanitarian tragedies that commonly accompany armed conflict have given higher priority to the need for improved coordination between peace operations and humanitarian assistance efforts.
Recent experience has also demonstrated the value of cooperative efforts between the UN and regional and sub-regional organizations. A concept of division of labor in peace-keeping operations is being outlined, based upon the realization that under certain conditions, regional organizations may be in a better position to handle a local crisis.
While the preservation of international peace and security has been a cardinal aim of the UN, it is also understood that this issue cannot be confined exclusively to the military sphere. Sources of conflict are many and complex, and our strategies to prevent conflict must be equally multifaceted and integrated if we are to be successful. Only by preventive action and effective communication at all levels can we achieve a more peaceful world.
Today, we clearly see how our common security is threatened by conflicts based on ethnic differences, religious intolerance, poverty, social degradation and competition for scarce natural resources. At the same time, we see how democracies tend to solve issues peacefully rather than go to war against each other, how their openness discourages human rights offenses, and how their freedom releases the human creativity so essential to social and economic development.
Working through the UN to promote social and economic development, to protect the environment, and to promote human rights and democracy, is thus not only important in itself, but also to secure a more stable and peaceful world in the longer run.
As to the debate over shortcomings of the UN system itself, there will always be room for improvement -- as in most bureaucracies of a certain size. The flurry of activities throughout the UN system reflects the acknowledgment of member states and UN officials that reform is needed, and that a better organized, more efficient UN will be better able to advance the collective needs and interests of member states.
Attention -- even if it's not always flattering -- is a healthy sign, and far better than being treated with indifference. The intensity of debate over the future of the UN proves that the UN matters, and that -- in spite of its shortcomings -- this world organization is here to stay!
The UN will continue to be a major instrument for the nations of the world to promote international peace, security and development, and it remains the only global instrument for defending human rights, protecting the environment and strengthening international law. No other institution is better placed to meet our shared concerns in the next 50 years than the United Nations. Let's celebrate!
Dagfinn Sørli is first secretary for political affairs at the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Washington.