Dimensions of peace and peaceful conflict resolution
The core purpose of the UN is to „save future generations from the scourge of war“. The founders of the UN agreed in 1945 that all people should live without want, without fear and in larger freedom. Not all 50 founding members were on the same page how the post WW2 world order should be governed to reach these goals. But the main initiators President Roosevelt and his successor President Truman had no doubts that in the interest of international peace and stability national interests had to be curbed. President Stalin saw this quite differently, and insisted on the veto, as did the Republican senators in the US delegation to the San Francisco conference.
But all founding members agreed that there are and will be international conflicts. All expressed their political will, that such conflicts should be settled peacefully. They gave the security council the mandate to watch over the maintenance of international peace, and within the council they assigned a special responsibility to the P5. In the UN Charter the outlined sequence of steps for securing peace begins with chapter VI, which includes a provision for the suspension of veto power (art 27.3) and only foresaw collective actions, such as sanctions and military intervention, in chapter VII.
Embedded in the UN Charter are compromises which should have been reviewed and assessed of their continuing validity. That was never done. Hence, by now 193 countries are members of the UN and subscribed to a varying degree to the notion that international peace is a collective responsibility, which supercedes national interests and transcends the boundaries of political systems.
Trust in the multilateral system and attitudinal change
Ever since 1945 there have been wars around the world. The member states and the UN secretariat responded to these violations of the UN Charter pragmatically with peace-making and peace-keeping operations. But even these are coming under severe criticism today and there is a noticeable political shift towards discontinuing these UN operations.
Whether a revamped Peace-Building Commission will be able to reverse this trend and come up with concepts better suited to end today’s brutal military operations in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Yemen, Myanmar to name only a few examples, remains to be seen.
What is most notable is the fact, that with the exception of the war in Gaza, the Security Council did not fulfil its mandate. And even with regard to Gaza, the UN member states have not been able to initiate a process for the Government of Israel and the political leadership of the Palestinian people to negotiate a peaceful solution. These failures have contributed to erode the trust into the UN as the center of global multilateralism.
To regain trust and to overcome the compromises of 1945 there has to be a noticeable attitudinal change of member states. If one considers the UN as a club of nation states with its statute and rules, clearly the UN management like the management of any other club has to ensure that all members respect the statute and the rules, and give appropriate recommendations to the UN bodies for their action according to the UN Charter. Violations need to be sanctioned, but more importantly, violation has to be ended and the recurrence of violations need to be avoided.
Legally all members have one vote, but the P5 have been granted privileges. Of the original 5 privileged members, three remain as shaping today’s world order, the USA, China and Russia. As long as these three big powers cannot come together in managing international peace, irrespective of their competition in the economic and cultural domains, and the difference in their national governance system, there are only two options to rectify the situation: either abolish the role and function of privileged members, and let majority voting determine the decisions of the UN bodies, or enact a stricter control over the exercise of privileges by the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
Colonial rule has ended some 50+ years ago. Almost all newly independent countries joined the UN. Today a second generation is now leading these countries, often educated in the countries which led the world during the second half of the 20th century. Often there is talk about the multipolar world of today. But so far, we have failed to define what this would mean in practical terms. Consequently, confrontations and rivalry prevail, instead of cooperation and dialogue, weakening multilateralism.
Diplomats and politicians in all countries need to hone their skills and competency to articulate their national interests in such a way that they can lead to cooperation. While a General Conference according to art. 109 is highly desirable, it clearly will need careful preparation by the UN secretariat.
Global governance
Multilateralism is built on voluntary commitments by member states. Such commitments are enacted within the political authority of nation states. Increasingly humanity faces challenges which are larger than any country on its own can addressed successfully. There is no political system that fits all countries. Too often in the past, one or the other superpower has attempted to fight the odds, but failed. In the 1990s, the secretary-general of the UN attempted to lead an international process of developing a blueprint for the global future through a series of international conferences culminating in the Millennium Summt in September 2000. But the UN as an organisation has not the authority of a national government. It also lacks the financial resources to implement the global agenda adopted by member states. The secretary-general only has the moral authority to keep members on the straight and narrow, and highlight good practices for replication by others.
The world of 2024 is different from the world in 1945. Hence the global governance system as designed in the UN Charter needs to be amended, in two respects: reenforce the peace mandate of the UN, and reform the institutional set up to enhance the legitimacy of UN bodies.
Member states are accountable to their populations through national policies and legislation, but they also hold a responsibility and are ultimately accountable to humanity for a global system that can ensure that there is a consensus on what are good practices and how resources can be mobilised to apply these experiences everywhere.
Raising 4 trillion for the SDGs
By now it is quite apparent that there is no consensus on how to reach the SDGs and consequently how to mobilise the needed financial and human resources to do so. It is, however, clear that only a combination of public and private initiatives and resources will move us towards attaining the SDGs. New approaches for international cooperation are required to stimulate such progress and economic growth. For instance, it is not the wheat deliveries from Ukraine and Russia which will eradicate hunger and poverty in African countries. It is research and multiplication of high-yielding varieties of indigenous millet and sorghum which will be in demand. Such research has to be carried out close to the producers, i.e. African farmers and in collaboration with them.
Development cooperation bilaterally and multilaterally has produced many good examples. They need to be scaled up and jointly funded from a multitude of soruces.
Fighting bias and seeking truth
A big stumbling block for cooperation, nationally and internationally, is today’s social communications, which deny facts in pursuit of individualistic or clientelistic interests. Established media are fighting against these trends, but we still have not found a collective response to the distortion of facts and the clash between unreconcilable opinions and views. We need to get to a situation where facts are facts, and what do about it is a matter of views and opinions. However, if we cannot define the common good, we shall not be able to solve this problem.
In films and novels violence can lead to quick desired results, in real life it does not. Diplomatic skills are in demand to stay engaged and find solutions step by step.
Alliances across regional and systemic boundaries and art. 109
It is often said that smaller multilateral groupings, unions and alliances undercut the UN. Chapter VIII of the Charter speaks a different language. Hence perceptions have to be changed, and smaller groups of member states be used as catalysts for a global consensus. In the recent past, many such organisations have confirmed their willingness to build the emerging world order on the basis of the UN Charter. We now need to move on to a debate, how and with which time table this can be discussed and concrete steps can be agreed to by all member states. The UN Charter foresees for such a decision-taking body the general conference according to art. 109.
Recognizing achievements and solving problems
Whether a glass is half full or half empty, depends often on the perspective chosen. With regard to international relations, the global order and global governance many hold the view today that the glass is half empty and being drained. Without belittling the terrible crises we have face, such a negative assessment is not built on global evidence. Progress is being made at many fronts, albeit not sufficient to become the dominant feature. The widespread view that good news are no news, only confirms that it is a very demanding task to present achievements so that they are inspiring to others and indeed for this reason noteworthy. DWB members stand ready to assist to change this situation.
