It is difficult to claim that the UN has achieved the success hoped for by its founding fathers. The Security Council has neither succeeded in preventing the scourge of war that still blights so many parts of the world nor has it been an efficient organ for crisis management and conflict resolution. Yet, despite all its frailties, the UN is a global intergovernmental organisation without which the world could not survive. Changes are needed, therefore, to increase its efficiency in all areas of its competence. Indeed, many proposals have been made and certain steps have been taken during the past few years to bring about major reforms both in the structure of the organisation as well as its working methods.

 

Turkey has been a founding member of the organisation and has taken an active part in its work in the course of the past 50 years. However, the inefficiency of the United Nations as a whole in finding peaceful solutions to important conflicts around the world, particularly in Cyprus and the Middle East, has been a source of concern in the Turkish capital. While such programs as the UNDP and the work of the specialised agencies are commendable, the challenges they face are also immense. Ideas of how to reform individual departments and structures abound, while the proposals of Kofi Annan and of the Wise-men Group have produced much of value, and continue to do so.

 

One promising step has been the founding of the United Nation Human Rights Council, composed of 47 countries. Despite the fact that this institution is still in its infancy, some have already expressed doubts have already been expressed as to how its composition would dovetail with the commitment of the General Assembly to consider the contribution of candidate states to the protection and promotion of human rights. Some of the elected countries are notorious for their disrespect for human rights.

 

Turkey, as a member of the “Western European and other states” group, had little chance of being elected to the lot of seven seats that has been occupied overwhelmingly by EU member countries, who have demonstrated membership solidarity even in this election.

 

Looking at the composition and the long-term framework for the development of its work program, one might be forgiven for speculating that this Council may not, after all, prove to be any more efficient than the Commission in promoting and protecting human rights in the world. It is more likely that the usual quibbles and verbal exchanges will dominate its future work. Furthermore, the absence of the US from the Council and its lack of support for its work will be a major handicap.

 

The issue of permanent membership to the Security Council inevitably provokes much dissatisfaction. A consensus on many of the disputes cannot be reached largely because the victors of World War II no longer face a common enemy. In the unlikely case of achieving a consensus on the nature of a threat they then invariably fail to agree on how to deal with it. Consequently, many of the disputes are then entrusted to regional organisations, coalitions, bilateral efforts or even to the Secretary-General, such as the Kashmir dispute, the Sudan Dispute, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, the Cyprus dispute, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The current ideas of reform seem to be directed at the question of Security Council membership and not at improving the UN’s decision-making capacity. Take, for example, the Cyprus dispute. When the Turkish state of Northern Cyprus was created, the UN Security Council asked member states not to deal with that state, resulting in the isolation of that part of the island. Later, it would not be the Northern Cypriot Turks but the Southern Cypriot Greeks who blocked UN efforts to find a compromise solution. In spite of the innocence of the Northern Cypriots, the Security Council did not even convene to discuss the report of Secretary-General to end the isolation of the North, simply because of lack of consensus among the permanent members of the Council. In order to be an effective arbiter in solving current chronic disputes the Security Council’s decisions must be fair and applicable and not merely pander to the whims or interests of some of its permanent members.

 

That said, the current debate is over which of Germany and Japan, if either, should become permanent members of the Security Council and whether or not the number of non-permanent members should be increased. Turkey falls into the group of states that supports the increase in the number of non-permanent members but opposes any increase in the permanent membership. However, Turkey does not fully associate itself with an outright refusal of the proposals for permanent membership of Germany and Japan. In short, the enlargement issues in the Security Council may take much longer than expected to be resolved due to the difficulty of determining the exact criteria for increasing both types of membership. Also, it is not yet known what effect the enlargement will play on increasing the role of the Security Council in bringing greater global security.

 

Another aspect of the membership debate in UN organs is the role of the EU. Like the UN, the EU is an intergovernmental organisation but with powers to legislate on issues on which there is a consensus among its member countries. Since the EU has assumed significant powers in economic, social and environment issues, it might play a useful role in some of the UN Committees and Agencies. ECOSOC could be a good place to have some EU representation. Yet, the EU has not yet assumed sovereign powers in the fields of foreign policy, security and defense. On minor global policy issues on which there is consensus, the EU is able to express its views in the General Assembly. However, one can hardly expect current European Security Council permanent members to share their prerogatives in UN organs with an intergovernmental organization that has neither a constitution nor authority to speak on behalf of its members in matters of foreign policy and security.