WORLD ON AUTOPILOT: How to Restore Trust in Planetary Institutions

(Patria) - The International Institute for Middle East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) from Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyzes events in the Middle East and the Balkans. Ambassador Tan Sri Hasmy Agam, former Ambassador of Malaysia to the UN, New York, and Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević, Chair and Professor of International Law and Global Political Studies, have prepared a comprehensive analysis titled "How to Restore Trust in Planetary Institutions." Two months ago, the authors analyzed the role of the UN Security Council in the Covid-19 situation and how multilateralism - as the most effective planetary tool at our disposal - is the only way the human race (socio-economically and politically) can survive.

In their new analysis, they examine how the lack of unity within the UN Security Council in addressing current pandemic challenges relentlessly raises the question of urgent reform of the UN Security Council with its inherently undemocratic decision-making process.

According to the views of the undersigned authors expressed nearly two months ago (https://www.neweurope.eu/article/the-un-security-council-should-urgently-address-covid-19/ ), we deeply regret that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) still fails to adopt a much-needed UN Security Council Resolution to address the Covid-19 (C-19) pandemic. This is largely due to tensions between two of the five permanent members (P5) - the US and China, with Washington seeking to shift blame or responsibility to China for the pandemic, while Beijing rejects any discussion or reference to it. Furthermore, these two countries hold opposing views on the role and conduct of the UN's specialized health agency, the World Health Organization based in Geneva (WHO).

Such an approach is completely wrong, short-sighted, and uncertain. There is a clear lack of maturity and wisdom, which the international community expects from the main or permanent members of the UN Security Council. What is evident is that petty bilateral differences (and the silence of other members) have created an unnecessary rift among members, instead of setting aside their differences in favor of the broader interests of the international community in the face of a devastating global event.
 
The Non-Aligned Movement as a Global Catalyst

Interestingly, the very history of voting in the UNSC shows that the ratio between adopted and blocked resolutions is approximately 10 to 1 (2,518 adopted Council resolutions, from 1945 to April 2020, compared to 293 blocked decisions for the same period). This indicates that other members, especially non-permanent UNSC members, have usually played a conscious, persistent, even leading role, ensuring that the UN Security Council acts responsibly and timely on matters significant to the Charter and concerning the international community as a whole.

Certainly, the P-5 states – as great powers with global preoccupations, along with regular mutual blockages – have often limited and slowed themselves down, rather than achieving consensus in the UN Security Council. Conversely, non-permanent members, through their consensus-building approach, have typically been in a better position to contribute to ensuring such desired and comprehensive governance of the Council. This has been the traditional role of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) for decades – ever since Bandung in 1955 and Belgrade in 1961 – with the commendable support of neutral Northern countries (the so-called N+N group).

Attempts by the Group of 20 (G-20) and the European Union (EU) to bridge gaps around C-19 have so far failed to bring the desired result. Given this deadlock, it seems better and more effective for the Non-Aligned/G-77, together with other key regional groupings of large membership and broad reach, such as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the African Union (AU) and others – to join the EU and G-20 – taking a more prominent role in creating the much-needed consensus within the United Nations Organization and its specialized agencies – directly or through the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

From the C-19 event, it is clear that the right to health is a concern for all. The search for a reliable cure to control any pandemic is not a matter for the private sector, but of fundamental individual rights, which are at a high level of sociality, as they are embedded in the UN Charter, which also binds each of the UN specialized agencies. The binary pro-vs-anti-vaccine debate is also a dangerous reductionism and a waste of planetary energy urgently needed for a holistic and new approach. There is no magic wand or shortcut for serious problems. Consequently, there is no one-directional medical research as a response to any pandemic, nor one-size-fits-all (and centrally produced) drugs forcibly prescribed for everyone. (Dogma is based on blind belief; science, however, requires constant multidimensional research. Science, especially medical science, does not operate with a single and absolute truth: The closest it can get is the least wrong answer – which must be constantly questioned, literally every day. That is the fundamental difference between religion and science.)

The proportionality of our (current and future) responses is another key issue. So, what is presented as an imperative is universal participation through intergovernmental mechanisms. This approach was clearly demonstrated by UN member states, as evidenced by the active role of Indonesia (in the Council, and together with another ASEAN and NAM member, Vietnam; and on behalf of the general membership in the UN General Assembly), Azerbaijan (on behalf of NAM) and France (on behalf of the P5 and EU) which joined Tunisia - a member of the Arab League (LAS), AU, OIC and NAM. Notably, UN member states representing this same line – on May 18, 2020, demanded an independent investigation into the handling of the World Health Organization (WHO).

After all, this is well recognized by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres himself, who recently stated that "With two-thirds of UN member states, the Non-Aligned Movement has a key role in creating global solidarity."

Form is not reform

It is quite disappointing that despite widely set expectations, the draft UN Security Council resolution (sponsored by France and Tunisia) did not itself address the C-19 problem and ways to tackle its rapid spread. Instead, it focused on the need to achieve a global ceasefire in existing conflicts in certain member states, as requested by UN Secretary-General Guterres, largely to his credit, in order to facilitate the distribution of much-needed food and medicine to people in these hotspots.

This inaction of the UNSC is in stark contrast to what this leading world body did in 1984, during the EBOLA pandemic in Africa, when it unanimously adopted a far-reaching UN Security Council Resolution (UNSC 2439 (2018) - containing 18 preambular paragraphs and 17 operative ones, with specific instructions for African states in conflict to take effective steps to control or prevent the spread of the EBOLA virus.

Nevertheless, even with the limitations of the latest Franco-Tunisian draft resolution, it would have resulted – had it been adopted – in a humanitarian pause for at least 90 crucial days to provide aid to the most vulnerable communities and give time for the international community to focus on fighting C-19. Unfortunately, this has (not yet) happened, due to the poor dynamics of the UNSC, and the consequent results will be continued conflicts and the unimpeded spread of secondary effects of the C-19 event in those conflict-ridden countries, which is truly to the disappointment and dismay of the international community.

It is clear that the problem is not the unwillingness of the international community to do what is necessary to stop, mitigate, shorten, localize, or avoid the spread of the pandemic and its secondary effects, but the failure of the UNSC – the most influential and authoritative organ of the world body – to fulfill planetary expectations and decisively deal with this global catastrophe that has consequences for international peace and security, as was the case during the EBOLA pandemic.

The lack of unity within the UNSC in addressing the current challenge brings us back to the old problem – the question of urgent reform of the UN Security Council with its inherently undemocratic decision-making process. This is largely the anachronistic power of the VETO, which reinforces and blocks the consensus architecture, which is vital for the UN as it faces many serious problems of a globalized and interdependent international community.

The failure of the UNSC to reach consensus is due to the inherent weakness of its decision-making mechanism, as well as the lack of unity among its non-permanent members. It is also due to the lack of stronger participation – in the very work of the UNSC – of the larger UN membership, as represented by NAM/G-77, but also before other principal organs of the UN – primarily the UN General Assembly (GA) and ECOSOC. Therefore, the UNSC at times of critical crossroads – such as this event, and the secondary effects we have not yet fully anticipated – seems still stuck in a kind of time warp, unaware of the changes that have occurred and are taking place around the world.

It goes without saying that the extremely slow, hypocritical, and endless advisory/negotiation process on Council reform and restructuring, which has been fruitlessly ongoing for two decades, should be urgently accelerated. This is a sine qua non, if we are at all serious about the age, demands, and expectations of current and future generations in member states, and the consolidation of international and intergenerational solidarity.

It is clear that a complex world requires smooth, rapid, and multi-layered coordination and cooperation among various agencies of the UN system, under the leadership of the UN Secretary-General. It must be dynamic, socially responsible, innovative, and holistic, to enable our Universal Organization and all other intergovernmental organizations – that architecture of our possible world – to anticipate and quickly deal with challenges that will certainly arise periodically in the future.

Restored trust requires a proactive and timely response, but also a vigorous call for a broad, not a narrow, participatory base.