Restoring the moral authority of the UN

Restoring the moral authority of the UN

Omar Halim, Jakarta

With 191 members, the United Nations is considered the world's
most universal organization. With its wide-ranging activities and
programs which touch on practically every aspect of human life,
the organization had been considered by people of the world,
especially in developing countries, as very relevant. In the
developing countries, the United Nations had always been held in
very high esteem, and this is still true in respect to those
bodies assisting them in the humanitarian, economic and social
fields.

In the political field, when the North was still bi-polar, the
United Nations was used by the East, West and South blocs,
particularly in the General Assembly, as a forum for political
infighting. In general, the Eastern bloc collaborated with the
South to face the Western bloc. The impact on the real world,
however, was limited because United Nations resolutions were in
general not binding.

In the security field, the United Nations was used by the two
super powers to play a very crucial, albeit very limited, role.
This was, for example, why traditional peacekeeping missions were
established, i.e. to prevent further escalation of the
confrontations being waged by them. Under such circumstances, the
United Nations had to adhere to the strict principle of
impartiality in order to be effective.

To this day, traditional peacekeeping missions such as UNDOF
(Golan), UNMOGIP (Kashmir), and UNFICYP (Cyprus) could be
considered effective because they are straight forward missions
separating the forces of the antagonists who, in turn, are in
control of their respective forces on the ground. Their success
in these areas has been due to the respect and the required
authority -- moral authority -- based on the application of the
principle of impartiality.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, the leadership of the
United Nations, and the Security Council, began to lose this
impartiality. On the ground, the United Nations has been losing
its moral authority, as shown in the failure of its mission in
Somalia in 1993 and later evidenced by the killing of the head of
the United Nations mission in Iraq in 2003.

The United Nations does not have the political, military or
economic power to assert its authority, so when it loses its
moral authority, its role becomes marginal. This is aggravated by
serious mistakes made due to incompetence or indifference, such
as in Srebrenica and Rwanda.

The objectives of the United Nations, as enshrined in its
Charter, are inter alia to establish peace and security; uphold
human rights, dignity and freedom; equality of human-beings and
nations; and to promote social progress and better standards of
life. These are lofty ideals worthy of this very important
institution. When I entered the service of the United Nations
nearly forty years ago, staff members were inculcated with the
ideals of working for a unique organization serving all human-
kind.

In the Charter of the United Nations, the "paramount
consideration in the employment of the staff...shall be the
necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency,
competence, and integrity" (Article 101). In short, efficient,
competent staff members with the highest standard of integrity
are asked to serve, under the direction of the secretary-general,
for the betterment of human race and the world they live in. The
staff and the secretary-general should be on the same team and
have a common goal in their work.

Unfortunately, often the United Nations management acts as if
the staff works for the bosses, and the bosses are the ones who
work for humankind. Management-staff relations are put in the
same footing as that of any corporation -- staff is seen as
potentially adversarial. The secretary-general does not perhaps
realize that, on the ground, the performance of the United
Nations is based solely on the attitude and performance of its
staff.

Grave wrong-doings by senior staff in the last few years, such
as sexual harassment by high-ranking staff and peacekeepers, have
apparently been ignored or covered up, to the extent that the
Staff Union passed a no-confidence resolution regarding the
Secretary-General for the first time in the history of the United
Nations. Corruption and nepotism regarding the Iraq Oil-for-Food
program have recently been uncovered by a highly respected panel
appointed by the secretary-general himself. This is in
contradiction to the ideal of good governance the United Nations
itself has often espoused.

It is not so much a legal issue of whether the Secretary-
General was aware of the payment made to his son by a firm that
was awarded a contract by the United Nations. All this has now
become a very serious political liability for the United Nations
and this, in turn, has eroded its moral authority even further.
The world expects that the respect and authority of the United
Nations have to be restored immediately.

The next secretary-general should have very strong political
backing from the European Union and, of course, have the support
from the United States, the Russian Federation and China. He or
she should assume office as soon as possible and promise to serve
only one five-year term.

The tasks are to restore the principle of impartiality in the
work of the United Nations; to radically streamline and
restructure the secretariat, and to appoint efficient and
competent staff with the highest standards of integrity. He or
she should not seek reelection. The United Nations will thus be
in a much better position to serve humankind well into the 21st
century.

The writer is a retired senior staff member of the United
Nations who served the organization for over 28 years, and now
resides in Jakarta, Indonesia.