The role of the United Nations in the 21st Century

The following is based on the address of former minister Ali Alatas at the talks held on the occasion of the convening of the Millennium Summit of the United Nations. The discussion was held in Jakarta on Sept.4 by the Indonesian Council on World Affairs and the UN Information Center.

JAKARTA: In preparation for the Sept. 6 to 8 Millennium Summit, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan presented his Millennium Report entitled: We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the 21St Century, in which he identified a number of pressing challenges facing the world as well as priority measures to ensure a better, more peaceful and just world.

Within the overall context of globalization, the Secretary General focused on five, broad fields of endeavor: globalization and governance; freedom from want; freedom from fear; a sustainable future; and renewing the United Nations.

These are indeed the main fields in which fundamental challenges are being posed to humankind.

For example, we have all recognized the obvious benefits of globalization in faster economic growth, enlarged markets and new economic opportunities. Yet recently, globalization has begun to generate a backlash as manifested by the large scale protests during last year's WTO meeting in Seattle.

This is because globalization is incapable of distinguishing between rich, advanced countries and poor developing countries, between the strong and the weak.

Thus globalization is indeed opening up tremendous opportunities for economic progress and for creating wealth, but only to the stronger, those that are capable of availing themselves of those opportunities. Yet it poses real and often severe challenges and risks to the vulnerable developing economies.

The central challenge to the international community, therefore, is not to oppose or resist globalization, for this would be impossible, but rather collectively to find the means and to agree on measures that can eliminate or at least amelio- rate its adverse aspects.

The UN is called upon to seriously address the challenge of how to harness the tremendous force of globalization and enlist it in the fight against poverty and for equitable economic progress in the world.

In security too, new concepts have emerged in the face of certain developments which are posing new dilemmas to the international community.

Security issues have been traditionally perceived and addressed in the context of inter-state relations, i.e. in terms of protecting the security of a state from threats, particularly military threats, from other states. Hence, the principal objective of security efforts was the protection of territorial integrity and national sovereignty against external threats.

In recent years, however, the gradual shift in the nature of armed conflicts, from inter-state wars to armed conflict and turbulence within states, and new types of problems -- such as those caused by terrorism, illegal drug trafficking, transnational organized crime, gross violations of human rights and environmental degradation -- have made us realize that when states are secure, it does not automatically follow that the people, the human beings within them are secure.

Thus, while security of states from external aggression or war remains a vital requisite to ensure their people's security, the past few years have seen the emergence of a new concept, that of human security.

Broadly defined, human security embraces the safety of the individual human being and/or of people from both violent and non-violent threats.

The underlying philosophy of the human security approach is that the objective of security should not only be conceived and pursued in terms of the interests of the state but rather in terms of the needs of the human being.

The question that now arises is: what can and what should the international community do to ensure the security of threatened human beings?

Two types of measures or actions seem to be called for: firstly, to "legislate" new norms of international law that would strengthen and secure a people-centered approach to security. In fact, the international community, both through the UN and outside it, has already begun doing so as exemplified by the recently signed Convention banning anti-personnel mines and the agreement establishing the International Criminal Court.

Similar efforts are continuing, directed towards such issues as: control of small arms, prohibition of the exploitation of children, including in armed conflict, and the combat against transnational crime.

Secondly, to take remedial action where prevention has failed. But it is precisely here, with the recent experience of Kosovo in mind, that the international community and especially the UN is being faced with an acute dilemma.

A dilemma posed, on the one hand, by the recognized necessity to put an end to humanitarian catastrophe in certain countries caused by or as a result of massive violations of human rights; and on the other hand, by the question of legitimacy of an action taken by a group of countries or regional organization without a UN mandate.

The UN Secretary General during last year's General Assembly session specifically raised this issue, thus sparking an international debate and controversy which most likely will continue well into the next decade.

While nobody can deny the imperative to stop massive and systematic violations of human rights, the risks that humanitarian intervention poses are equally clear: it could set dangerous precedents if done without clear and accepted criteria or guidelines as to how, when and by whom such intervention should be carried out.

There is great sensitivity and concern, especially among developing countries, about the notion of eroding the principle of state sovereignty as implied in humanitarian intervention.

It is quite obvious, therefore, that if humanitarian intervention is to be accepted as a new norm in international relations, it must always be based on the principles of legitimacy and of universal applicability or non-discrimination. It must be justly and consistently applied, irrespective of which country or region would be affected.

Hence, the UN should first thoroughly discuss the fundamental questions raised by this evolving international norm so as to arrive at a consensus on the principles and criteria, the mandate and guidelines, and the specific circumstances under which such humanitarian intervention could take place.

There are, of course, other serious and urgent challenges and problems facing the UN as we enter the 21st century, both those which have remained unresolved over the years as well as new ones.

The fundamental problems of how to eradicate world-wide poverty, secure access to better health care and education, coping with environmental degradation and debt relief and trade access for the developing countries are some of those in the first category.

But new challenges have emerged, such as how to combat various types of transnational crime, how to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and how to bridge the so-called digital divide.

However, it all boils down to the primordial challenge of our time, namely, how to devise and implement a more effective system of global governance, capable of managing the demands and implications of globalization and interdependence.

A new, global partnership needs to be nurtured, based on equity, common interest, mutual benefit and shared responsibility.

Such a global cooperation, however, would fail to function properly without a UN to give coherence to it. Global governance, therefore, to be effective and acceptable to all, must be fashioned with the UN as its central and irreplaceable mechanism and source of legitimacy.

The revitalization of the UN, through a comprehensive process of restructuring, democratization and empowerment of its major organs and functions, is therefore imperative.

It is of pivotal importance that the General Assembly, the highest deliberative and most representative organ within the UN system be strengthened and made more effective. Just as crucial is the reform of the Security Council so as to reflect contemporary realities and to accommodate the interests and concerns of developing countries, which comprise the overwhelming majority in the organization.

But if the financial plight of the UN persists, there is a real danger that those efforts would be severely undermined and the purposes of the reform process itself negated.

Hence, the restructuring of the UN, including ensuring its financial viability, constitutes a key component of the efforts of the international community to meet the challenges of the new global era.