The UN: Multilateralism vs. unilateralism

J. Soedjati Djwandono, Jakarta

Various proposals have been suggested by individual member countries as well as different groups of member countries on the reform of the United Nations. Of no less importance has been the proposal offered by the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, for discussion among members of the world organization prior to the General Assembly in September this year.

Indeed, the degree of success or failure of the United Nations may be assessed by its performance in its various functions. Yet the idea of reform seems to have been focused on its main responsibility, namely for the prevention of war among nations and thus the promotion and maintenance of international peace. Hence, reform of the UN primarily concerns the membership of the Security Council, which since its establishment has consisted of five permanent members, each with the veto right, and non- permanent members who do not have the veto.

The idea of reform at the UN is not new at all. The demand for the "democratization" of the UN was once embodied in the "Jakarta Message" of the non-aligned countries, articulated at a summit meeting in Jakarta in September 1992.

The democratic system, however, has little relevance to the United Nations. Yet in his speech before the UN General Assembly in September last year, the Indonesian foreign minister, in support of Indonesia's efforts for a permanent seat on the Security Council, maintained that as the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia had proven that Islam could be a fortress of democracy and social justice.

Even if that was true -- which is doubtful, for relations between Islam and democracy are still problematic for many Muslims in this country -- neither religion nor democracy has much relevance to the UN. And Indonesia can hardly brag about its democracy, which should be judged not only on the basis of democracy as a system, with all its mechanisms, but above all on the basis of democracy as an ideal: equality, justice and respect for human rights. Think of the former Soviet Union, now Russia, and the People's Republic of China! They both continue to enjoy their veto privilege.

Insisting on either abolishing or expanding the veto right, which in effect would mean reducing its effectiveness for decision making on the Security Council, is to misunderstand its original intent, as well as the underlying motive of establishing the international organization. It tends to overlook certain facts of international politics.

The UN was basically a creation of the so-called Big Five, namely the "victors" of World War II and now the permanent members of the UN Security Council, when many of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and concurrent members of the UN were yet to obtain international recognition as sovereign and independent states. Surely it was a joke to call (Nationalist) China and France at that time "victors" of the war, when in the European theater only the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union could be properly called as such. In the Pacific war, the Unites States alone deserved to be called "victor".

Second, the UN was a reflection of the postwar world order. That world order shortly afterward developed into the Cold War, marked by a "balance of power".

In that kind of world order, the question of peace or war was the primary responsibility of the major powers. Now, of course, all five permanent members of the Security Council are nuclear powers.

It was assumed that it was up to them whether there would be war or peace in the world, if only in the limited sense of the absence of such a war among nations. It would therefore be only fair that besides their responsibilities, they also enjoyed certain privileges.

The veto right of the major powers was both a responsibility and a privilege, but one that was necessary for the maintenance of international peace. A decision of major importance, i.e. one likely to affect international peace, made by the Security Council without the concurrence of any one of the major powers could very well prompt the major power concerned to take a unilateral action leading to war, especially if its perceived vital national interests were at stake. Thus the veto right was designed precisely as a mechanism to ensure a consensus among the major powers as a guarantee for the maintenance of international peace.

The United Nations purports to represent the existing world order. And the decisive influence of the United States over the organization through its dominant role in the Security Council since the end of the Cold War seems to fit with the prevailing world order. Restructuring the United Nations, therefore, would require restructuring the world order. But a world order comes into being not so much by design as by force of circumstances.

During the Cold War, no single major power could claim to occupy a predominant position because of what was commonly perceived as a balance of power. For reasons of strategic nature, the U.S. is now the only "superpower" in the post-Cold War world. That has enabled the U.S. to act unilaterally and get away with it, for example abandoning the principle of multilateralism with its invasion on Iraq.

In the end, the question concerns the problematic value of multilateralism versus unilateralism. Multilateralism provides political legitimacy for an action on behalf of the international community. The UN serves as a source of "moral" authority, although relations among nations (nation-states) are "amoral" -- not "immoral" -- for a state is an abstraction. However, finding no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the original justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq was changed to the "liberation" of the Iraqi people from the injustice of the despot Saddam Hussein.

Indeed, introducing individual freedom and democratization is a noble aim. But it is a moral question whether a morally noble aim can be imposed by violence. The answer may depend on how one understands the concept of "violence" and "injustice", while the moral validity of a "choice of lesser evil" may be doubtful.

Hopefully, one can still rely on the U.S. Constitution with its effective system of checks and balances.

The writer is a political analyst.