« Previous Story | Next Story »

September 29, 2005

“The United Nations at 60: Can it Meet Changing Global Needs?”: Fletcher Faculty and Students Discuss the Responsiveness of the UN in Meeting Current Global Problems

What would the world be like today if the UN had not been created in 1945? Has the UN been responsive in addressing contemporary and emerging global threats? Or has it lost its relevance as the venue for harmonizing the actions of its members in attaining their common goals?

These are some of the questions which were addressed by Fletcher School Professors Ian Johnstone, Alan Henrikson, Adil Najam, Bill Moomaw and Ambassador Ricardo Luna during the forum entitled “The United Nations at 60: Can it Meet Changing Global Needs?” held at the Fletcher School on September 26, 2005. Sponsored by the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy, the event brought together Fletcher faculty and students to discuss and assess the results of the 60th session of the UN General Assembly and the World Summit Meeting held in New York from September 13 to 16 this year.

Prof. Johnstone, senior editor of the First Annual Review of Global Peace Operations which is due for release in March 2006, kicked off the discussion by providing background on the 2005 Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals and the discussions in the General Assembly on their implementation. The eight Goals seek to bring together the efforts of all countries and leading development institutions in addressing several issues ranging from poverty, the spread of HIV/AIDS, providing primary education and ensuring environmental sustainability by the target date of 2015.

Prof. Johnstone said that the World Summit Outcome, which was adopted by the General Assembly this year, produced “good normative commitments, with the member-states reaffirming the Millennium Declaration, their common responsibility to protect, the notion that good governance is crucial to obtaining reform, as well as the universality of human rights.” He added that while the member-states did not provide for a definition of terrorism, “what is important is that they made a statement deploring it.”

However, he said that no commitments were made during the meetings on UN institutional reforms. “Further, while statements were made in favor of the creation of a human rights commission and a peace commission, as well as the implementation of Secretariat management reforms, no details were discussed as to how these would be initiated.”

Ambassador Luna emphasized the need to address the issue of institutional reforms in the UN, particularly with regard the Security Council.

“The idea of UN Security Council reform was to bring about some balance in its power structure,” Ambassador Luna said, adding that the two critical issues now confronting the UN are the credibility of the system and the lack of balance in the topography of its membership.

Heather Sensibaugh, a first year MALD student, inquired on the impact on the UN of the US Government’s aggressive push for reforms and the seemingly deferential attitude of other states.

Prof. Najam replied that this observation is not entirely accurate. “Other states are also pushing for reforms. The question is on what kind of reforms are being pushed.”

Ambassador Luna added that “what is important is that there is no ideological clash. We must look for a hierarchy of reforms that other states can agree to.”

On a pragmatic note, Prof. Najam stressed that in the end, despite its flaws, the UN remains to be the “primary venting forum and arena of international discourse for all states on all issues affecting mankind”.

“We talk about the UN as if it was a distinct entity. Actually, it is what it is at a given moment in time -- it represents the aspirations of the people it represents.”

Article by Sharon R. Rivera, MALD '07

Posted by jessica at September 29, 2005 09:28 AM