After more than fifty years of living with the United Nations, it is important that we stop and take stock of the experience - its good points and bad points.  Reformers must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water! I propose to look at the UN as it has functioned in the last fifty years, examine the healthy trends in our world and suggest a UN course which would enhance those healthy trends.

Our experience of the United Nations since January 1945:

The UN was the creation of nation states, after World War II.  It was given no political or military power.  It is not a nation, and it stands as a handmaiden to the nations, with (according to their plan) only the power given to it by the member nations. This immediately put the UN into a difficult position, with the world’s hopes and the dreams for a peaceful, orderly world central to its mandate, and having no legislative or judicial power to accomplish this goal. However, its very impotence made it a non-threatening agent for good in a troubled world.

An International Court was also established, but this new organization was shafted by the United States which added a clause to its ratification, stating that the World Court would have jurisdiction only over matters external to the U.S., and if it was disputed whether the issue was internal or external, it would be decided by the U.S.  This is a clever way of stating that the Court has no jurisdiction over the US unless the US agrees to give it jurisdiction in each particular circumstance. Unfortunately, many other nations followed this leadership. The new World Criminal Court is a very welcome addition to the World Court.  However, we will have to see how it functions.

The chance of the United Nations blossoming out into a respected world actor was very slim.  However, the UN, instead of bemoaning its lack of political, judicial and military power, turned to a feminist mode of developing “social power”. It decided at some early date, that it belonged to the people of the world, as well as to the nation states. It very quickly looked around to see the needs of the people, and set up agencies which might begin to actually meet those needs, rather than merely sponsor studies. The UN raised the profile of global humanitarian needs in the lives of the more fortunate and affluent people of the world. One might say, the UN was “in your face” with the problems.  It has many agencies, each having its own story, but I will mention them here in alphabetical order just to point out their visionary thrust and the immense tasks which they undertake.

            OCHA - The UN Office for Coordination for Humanitarian Affairs

            ESCWA - The Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

            OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

            UNDP - The UN Development Programme

            UNEP - The UN Environment Programme

            UNESCO - The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

            UNFPA - The UN Fund for Population

            UNHABITAT - The UN Human Settlements Programme

            UNHCR - The UN High Commissioner on Refugees

            UNICEF - The UN Children’s Fund

            WEP - The World Food Programme

            WHO - The World Health Organization

These topics: health, social well being, development, refugees, humanitarian needs, the environment, education, human rights and human settlements, are the concerns which are foremost feminine issues addressing the habitability of our planet home and care for the people! I suggest that this strong issue centered group of agencies might be invited to provide an advisory committee for the Security Council. It might contribute realistic scenarios for the consequences of actions before they are taken. 

There are other committees of the General Assembly, for example the First Committee which addresses serious problems of nuclear threats to life. Other prominent agencies were added at the request of the nations, and these attend to more masculine concerns such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the United Nations Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first two regulate horizontal proliferation of nuclear bomb technology and report on radiation pollution while the third supervises an aggressive type of globalization based on free market economies.

The IAEA, unlike other UN agencies, reports directly to the Security Council. This may be appropriate for questions of military security, but it is not appropriate for the other agenda items it addresses.  For example, the IAEA is the only agency which is mandated to promote commercial industries, namely those which use nuclear power and its by- products. It is also the voice for reporting on radiation health, for example, after the nuclear reactor accident in Chernobyl. It would seem more sensible to remove the commercial promotional functions of IAEA to a separate organization outside of the United Nations system, and move its health related function into the WHO.

As the world rids its self of nuclear bombs this agency should disappear.

The World Trade Organization also seems to be inappropriate as a UN agency, although some regulation of trade is needed. This agency arose as a replacement for GATT (the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) which had been established after the end of the Second World War. After the demise of the Cold War, GATT was transformed into WTO, a tool for promoting world wide free trade. It seems to be related to a false sense that since capitalism “won” the war against communism, it can now extend itself into all of the world economies. 

This logic depends on the assumption that “might makes right”. There are many people in the world who do not accept the notion that physical dominance is proof one has the best idea.  A pure market economy has not worked even in the developed world, which has in place central banks, chief financial officers, and selective “open” markets. Free Trade should not be precipitously promoted in the economically developing world unless they have, in place, the many monitoring and moderating forces present in the developed world! There is still much to be said for democratic socialism and some local control and creativity in the economy.

Other UN Agencies have been created to meet special needs, such as UNSCOM the UN Special Commission on Iraq, and UNMOVIC, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, which replaced UNSCOM in 1999.

The many social issues, which were made visible by the attention directed toward them by the UN, also gave rise to International Conferences: on the environment, human rights, women, children, population, water, energy, peace and related issues of high importance for survival of humans and their planet home. These conferences focused on the problems facing large numbers of the world’s peoples, brought good will and an amazing amount of “social credibility” and what I call “social power” to the United Nations. Most of the world conferences for member states, have been accompanied by conferences where Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) can add their analysis of the situations and proposals for improvement. The combination of these global events and the on-the-ground assistance given to people by the various UN agencies has made the UN a household friend throughout the world.  This trust is precious and must not be lost through any “reform”.

I remember prior to the fall of the iron curtain, that when I proposed anything to the Russian people or in the Eastern bloc countries, they always stated that if it was a UN programme, or a WHO programme, they could participate. This was also true in the economically developing countries.  This is an important and amazing accomplishment, achieved in some fifty years, among a clientele of five to six billion people!

 How the World Has Changed:

There is a strong shift in global thinking, which is moving more and more issues once considered national, to the international realm.  Environment, for example, deals with the air, water and land, of a constantly recycling planet. The air over one’s land circulates over the globe spreading pollutants into areas which have had no benefit from the polluting activity.  Pesticides, spread on the land in the temperate zones, are quickly blown in the air or washed into the waters and migrate to the polar areas. Foods, grown in polluted ground, are transported to all continents and find their way to dinner tables far from their source.

.    

Scarcity of natural resources is increasingly the cause of strife and war. We now witness wars over oil and water. As yearly global consumption exceeds the ability of the earth to replace natural resources, these tensions and wars can be expected to increase.

Recent wars have failed to follow the precautions to which all nations agreed when signing the UN Charter.  I think it not out of place to quote the preamble to that Charter:

“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 [humankind], and

“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

“to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

“to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

“AND FOR THESE ENDS

“to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and

“to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

“to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

“to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

“HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS”.

In pursuit of these goals the UN supports dialogue, mediation and ingenuity in solving inter-national problems.  The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, 11 September 2001, presented a new problem, not considered at the time of the Charter, but provided for, nevertheless.  A non national group (dispersed through many nations) attacked a nation and demanded the world’s attention.

What UN resources were and were not available in this crisis? Importantly, there is no forum for discussion between nations and non-national groups, which form themselves under some pressure or assumed wrong.  This could and must be remedied. A citizen forum needs to be provided by the UN to deal with such serious problems.

There is an international police force, Interpol, to which most nation states belong.  This might be strengthened, and asked to serve to identify and apprehend the dissenting group that caused the violent loss of life. Engaging Interpol might be accomplished by approaching the new World Criminal Court with one’s evidence for a “case” and calling for an indictment of the group which perpetrated the violence. In the terrorist case at hand, there has been no presentation of evidence or legitimization of pursuit of the group in question at an International Court level.  No country should stand above international law or assume the status of accuser, judge and jury in an international dispute. This is especially inappropriate when the nation in question has already pledged its country’s support for international law.

Article 33, of the UN Charter, provides for consultation and mediation in such a situation. It would be a cooling off period, strategizing as to the best course of response, and also a time to make ones case to other nations and gain their assistance.

Article 33

1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.

 By assuming the legality of a presumptive strike, the US has set a precedent which the world does not need or want! The Russian Federation was quick to grasp it, after its own bout with terrorists. This contempt for international law has brought about overwhelming devastation, chaos, and loss of life. Even more important for the global community, is the contempt for international treaties which undermines the wealth of social power gained by the United Nations through its humanitarian work over more than fifty years. How the UN, the US and other member countries, deal with this crisis will either establish once and for all the UN’s moral authority in the world community, or introduce a lawless world of nation states with the mighty dominating and destroying the weaker nations. This is indeed a cross road for civilization.  Will the world choose brute force or law?

Grass Roots Forces Potentially Strengthening Global Health:

Global Religions are a potential source of assistance for the non-violent agenda of the United Nations.  Looking just at the five Religions of the Books, there are 2,000 million Christians in the world, 1,200 million members of Islam, 750 million Hindus, 500 million  Buddhists, 18 to 20 million Sikhs and 12 million Jews.  This accounts for 4,481 million people, or 75% of the global community.  Religious leaders could assist the UN in dealing with inflamed feelings stemming from fanatical religious observances.  Fundamentalism is found in all of these main religions, and has a strong effect on believers that is detrimental to global peace.

Bruce Lawrence, in “Defenders of God: The Fundamentalist Revolt Against the Modern Age” defines fundamentalism as: "the affirmation of religious authority as holistic and absolute, admitting of neither criticism nor reduction; it is expressed through the collective demand that specific creedal and ethical dictates derived from scripture be publicly recognized and legally enforced ."

Should fundamentalism prevail in the global community, society would be doomed to continuous struggle over whose Holy Book contained all of the laws which needed to be imposed, litigated, judged, and punished in civic society. Most religions publicly recognize the primacy of the individual conscience, and also the right of people to choose their form of worship. This is the opposite of fundamentalism. Most religions could also agree on the acceptable public behavior demanded to protect a just, compassionate and reasonable society from the extreme judgments of fundamentalism.. Indeed, many nations peacefully include members of all five major religions.

Three of these religions are global, successfully including persons of different cultures, languages and ethnic heritage.  They would be of enormous help in seeking honest, ethical, and unbiased solutions to international conflicts. The UN might find an acceptable way to use the wisdom and ethical sensitivity of religions in order to bring security and peace to the global community. These religions all have peaceful goals, legal systems governing the family and community, and wisdom which adapts to intercultural milieu. People should be free to observe their own religious norms without imposing them on the general society. The Churches and Temples could be a tremendous help in promoting peace rather than violent factions that operate under religious pretense.

Bioregionalism is a relatively new grass roots approach to ecology that emphasizes sustainability, community, self-determination and regional self-reliance. National boundaries often cut across bioregions, where the people have common interests and problems.  I believe that eventually bioregionalism will supplant the traditional nation state organization of the global community, which although it has served the world for three hundred years has failed to achieve environmental security and international peace.

A bioregion is a distinct area with coherent and interconnected plant and animal communities, and natural systems.  They are often defined by watersheds. It is the life space of a distinct group of people, who can map it and discern its needs and their own local treasures. It provided people with a place and a story, because all of our earth habitats have history and tales of wonder associated with them. The most basic fact of our existence is that we live in a particular kind of ecosystem, in biotic communities with specific kinds of species of animals and plants, with their own geography, climate, language, laws and religions. This is a more natural basis for the global village than are the artificial boundaries imposed by nation states.  I believe that this transition will be slow and can occur naturally with time.  The UN would do well to encourage such developments.

Bioregionalism confronts the concept of ownership of land, which has been the historical cause of so many wars.

Eco feminism is also a potential source of grass roots based strengthening of the social power of the UN. Eco feminism directly addresses patriarchal androcentric tendencies which promote a philosophy of domination: the strong over the weak; men over women; humans over nature. The organizational strengths of the UN are clearly feminist, and the growing sensitivity to hierarchical structures, and to the correcting force of eco feminism will further the links between the UN and the grass roots organizations operating on this analysis of global tensions. 

Deep Ecology, which directly critiques our anthropocentric tendencies, is also a constructive grass roots analysis supporting the UN. This analysis has given direction to animal rights groups, and informed the Earth Charter of the United Nations. Earth rights and animal rights were far from the minds of the founders of the UN, but as we face species loss and bio-destruction on a massive scale, these values have come to the fore in global thinking.

There is a new grass roots movement called Social Ecology which focuses on social structures which maintain systems of poverty, subjection of women or nature, and relegation of communities into more easily handled and dominated ethnic groups.  Social ecology critiques hierarchical structures of oppression, dominant society manipulations maintaining the status quo, and actions which prevent the development of natural civic growth of people and ecological communities.

Efforts to work with International Businesses toward clean production, and cradle to grave control of all products and processes, is encouraging. However, many worry that the overwhelming economic power of today’s corporations will over shadow the social concerns of the UN.  This leads me to consider recommendations for the reform of the UN.

Reform of the United Nations:

In order to maintain a direction toward rule of law, and sustainable development, the UN needs to be financially independent of the nation states which govern it.  There are many possible ways it might approach this financial independence: a tax on rich people rather than rich nations; the Tobin tax on international transactions; income from the global commons, the seas; taxation of transnational corporations; etc.  Most women have found it important to be financially independent and secure, so as to enter into a mature marriage relationship as an equal partner.

The UN needs a financial branch which will audit and control its internal budgets, to the highest standards, and act to preserve human and ecological values when these are threatened by market forces. Some utilities and commodities are essential to life, and must not be traded for economic gain. For example, structural adjustment is an unacceptable way to balance national budgets on the backs of the poor. The World Bank and International Monetary Fund need the ability to check military budgets as well as domestic spending, when a nation is in financial trouble.  These financial institutions also need to free themselves from financial dependence on one country.  Democracy does not give power based on income.  One person one vote is the international norm!

A global bank could make sure that fair and just practices prevail in currency trading, the stock market and financial dealings. Perhaps the UN could stop speculation on markets and some of the gambling with developing economies which is destructive of peaceful societies.

 Agencies like the World Health Organization should be freed from agreements which limit their fulfillment of their fundamental purpose. For example, they should not turn over their trust to guard the health of the people to either technological agencies or drug companies. Nor should the IAEA act as arbiter of health from exposure to ionizing radiation.  The various WHO expert committees should not replace the ability of the WHO to select its own experts and follow its own mandate to protect health. 

It is important that the World Court and industrial chemists and physicists recognize the need for preventive health strategies.  I found it ridiculous for the World Court to rule that nuclear war was not a legitimate concern of the WHO. The Precautionary Principle, when applied by the WHO, should take precedence over profit making and economic goals. Preventing sickness is a prime health concern.

A careful investigation of lines of decision making, and the demands of contemporary life, needs to be undertaken with respect to all agencies. Many practices need to be re-examined, as they have come to be “common” without sufficient thought as to the sustainability of the whole enterprise.

One example of problematic handling of a serious request is the UN handling of the question of use of Depleted Uranium, radioactive waste, in weapons used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. This was perceived as a problem for radiochemical engineers, and there was little or no WHO medical evaluation of the victimized people. Investigators, from UNEP and WHO, were limited to declaring the radioactive levels either “permissible” or “not permissible” relative to the recommendations of an NGO, the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP). A medical judgment by the WHO would have been more appropriate.  It has even been stated by a former WHO epidemiologist that medical research was suppressed in favor of engineering advice and ICRP guidelines for assessing cleaning up after a nuclear accident. War is not an accident! The IAEA also took the lead with respect to the Chernobyl disaster, and some WHO studies of the disaster aftermath were never released to the public.

There is need to implement the new agencies agreed upon in Agenda 21 at the Rio Environment Conference in 1992. A global Environmental Protection Agency, to set acceptable occupational and public heath policy for industry, prevents trade-offs of health for money. Setting health based regulations should be the responsibility of the WHO. These regulations need to be global or they will become reasons for industry to move to countries with the most lax environmental rules.  Likewise, worker rights enforced in global terms would prevent the rush to cheap labor which economically devastates communities and causes exploitation of workers

Enforcement of Environmental protection Laws requires a new specialized court, the International Court of the Environment.  This court has been seriously fleshed out in Italy, with the help of several international planning conferences.  This project which is already quite mature, needs to be incorporated, as a specialty court, into the World Court..

My last proposal is to promote and advertise the already existing UN International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). This agency allows local communities to communicate and share projects with international partners. It develops global friendships, and an international network of support for UN initiatives.  I suggest strongly, giving this agency a higher profile, and encouraging creative grass roots collaboration for a sustainable future.

I left reform of the Security Council to experts in military strategy. It is obviously out of touch with the twenty first century global reality, and it gives the appearance of recognizing the nuclear club as superior to other nations. This reform and the initiation of a global People’s Forum are urgent. The complexity should not cause us to shirk from the task for the good of future generations.

Dr. Rosalie Bertell, GNSH

1 October 2004