The United Nations at the Crossroads of Reform

Wendell Gordon

• Éditeur: Routledge
• Année: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315483399
• Édition: 1
• Sujet: Politik & Internationale Beziehungen
• Sous-sujet: Politik

This study presents a case for the reform of the United Nations and discusses possible measures for enforcing peace worldwide. There are separate chapters on such topics as the General Assembly, Security Council, the Secretary-General and the Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice.

---

Part I
The Organization and Functioning of the United Nations

---

1
The United Nations and Its Membership

The charter of the United Nations states: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and … to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties … can be maintained … have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.” The charter also refers to “fundamental human rights,” equal rights for all “nations large and small,” the promotion of “social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” and the employment of “international machinery” to accomplish such goals.

The United Nations became operative as the successor organization to the League of Nations on October 24, 1945, on the basis of the charter signed at San Francisco on June 26 of that year.¹ In May 1946 the League of Nations formally dissolved itself and transferred its assets, property, and buildings to the new United Nations.

Against the background of the League’s inability to handle the mess of the 1930s, the leaders of the Allies, particularly Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, had begun early during World War II to plan for a more effective worldwide organization to keep the postwar peace. To this effect there were an Inter-Allied Declaration signed June 12, 1941, at St. James’s Palace in London; an Atlantic Charter, agreed to by Roosevelt and Churchill on a battleship in the North Atlantic on August 14, 1941; a “Declaration by United Nations” on New Year’s Day, 1942; declarations at conferences in Moscow, October 3, 1943, and Tehran, December 1, 1943. Concrete plans were first drawn up at a mansion in Washington called Dumbarton Oaks in the fall of 1944. There followed the notorious conference at Yalta involving Roosevelt, Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, in February 1945. The charter of the United Nations was then formally adopted at the conference in San Francisco. Enough ratifications were received to justify the United Nations’ formal existence beginning October 24, 1945. The organization began to function with the opening of the first General Assembly on January 10, 1946, in London. On February 14 the General Assembly voted to accept the United States’ invitation to locate the permanent headquarters there. Temporary headquarters were first located at Hunter College in New York City, (the Bronx) and then at Lake Success on Long Island. The decision to locate permanently on Manhattan’s East Side was made December 14, 1946. Occupancy of the headquarters building began in August of 1950.

The principal organs of the new organization were the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Trusteeship Council, International Court of Justice, and Secretariat, all headed by a secretary-general. There were and are innumerable auxiliary, subsidiary, related, autonomous, specialized, and associated organizations, some antedating the United Nations and even the old League of Nations. The ties that bind are quite strong in some cases, weak in others. Some are dependent on the United Nations budget for financing; others are more or less financially independent, such as the International Monetary Fund.

Membership

It is not automatic that all countries are members. The initial members were the countries that participated in the United Nations Conference on International Organization that convened in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, plus Argentina, Denmark, Byelorussia, the Ukraine, and Poland, making a total of fifty-one. The original membership was basically the victors in World War II.

By 1994 the membership was 184. The membership fluctuates, however (see Figure 1.1). One might believe that it is simple and straightforward to identify a nation, argue that all nations should be members of the United Nations, and automatically recognize the membership of all such identifiable nations. The situation is, however, not quite so simple for several reasons, in part because of difficulties associated with the concept of sovereignty, in part because of questions involved in identifying the personnel of a government entitled to speak for a country. And there are other problems.

Palestine is illustrative of the difficulties. Is Palestine or should Palestine be recognized as an independent country? Should the Palestine Liberation Organization be recognized as the government or legitimate representative of that country? The changes made in 1994 seem not to have resolved these issues. What is the proper role of such a country? What is the proper role of a country such as Monaco, which handles its own internal affairs and gambling casino as an ostensibly independent and sovereign country but whose foreign affairs are managed by the French government? Monaco became a member of the UN in 1993.

Admission to the UN involves an initial recommendation by the Security Council and a subsequent final decision by the General Assembly. The Security Council may move with speed or very slowly, sometimes taking years to respond to applications for admission. The General Assembly has typically acted promptly after the Security Council makes a recommendation. Procedures are also provided in Article 5 of the charter for the temporary suspension or expulsion of members following recommendations of the Security Council and action by the General Assembly.

Disproportion in Size of Countries

The one-country, one-vote system prevailing in the General Assembly might be acceptable if the countries were about the same size, but a situation in which five countries represent half of the population of the world and half of the countries represent only about 4.5 percent of the total population makes such a procedure a bit undemocratic. Also, in discussion in the General Assembly each nation is entitled to “equal time” to describe its position, a procedure that can be quite time consuming.

Figure 1.1 Members of the United Nations (as of May 1993)

These considerations suggest a doubt as to the reasonableness of the criteria for identifying a country for UN membership. Or, perhaps, the membership criteria may be left as is if the rules on voting and podium time are changed. This issue is discussed further in the next chapter.

Location

Shirley Hazzard has reported that: “The United Nations Preparatory Commission, meeting in 1945, advocated that the United Nations should be so situated as to be free from any attempt at improper political control or the exercise of undesirable local influence.” She also has mentioned that the 1946 Yearbook of the United Nations recorded that the organization “should not be located in the territory of one of the major powers, in particular one of the five permanent members of the Security Council.”²

These precepts represented a concern that if the headquarters were located in the territory of a great power that power might use its position to influence the work of the United Nations, or merely to hamstring the organization.

But the power leverage of the United States in 1946 and the financial inducements provided in the offer of a site in New York City represented more pressure than the fledgling organization could resist. The headquarters came to the United States and to New York City and with the anticipated consequence, question as to whether the United States has misused its position.

Control of Access

The Headquarters Agreement between the United States and the United Nations, which was concluded in 1947, provided: “The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of representatives of members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies or representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation.” Other wording in the agreement strove to plug any possible loopholes in its meaning. The United States was not supposed to try to control access.

Despite this seemingly firm commitment, the United States government (Congress, the Executive, and assorted local governments) has interfered with the coming to New York of people on United Nations business. And the United Nations has allowed itself to be overridden or inconvenienced by such interference.

An example of such an incident occurred in late 1988 when the United Nations General Assembly was to be addressed by Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. The United States Secretary of State George Shultz, strongly encouraged by Jewish organizations, refused to grant Arafat the necessary visa to enter the United States in order to get to the UN compound, arguing that it was not good judgment to allow the head of a terrorist organization to enter the United States. The United Nations’ reaction was to go to the expense of transferring the General Assembly to Geneva to hear an address by Arafat on December 13.

The United Nations might consider the appropriateness of moving its principal headquarters to a place where it can better control its own working arrangements. Geneva would be a possibility. Or perhaps a small country such as Luxembourg might see advantages to such a role and be more cooperative than the United States has been.

---

2
The General Assembly

The United Nations charter, in article 7, ...