Not being Swiss, I am in no way qualified or mandated to speak of the views of Switzerland. The view of UN Reform from Switzerland, however, is illuminating.
Geneva is without doubt, as we like to say at our university, the most diplomatic neighbourhood on the planet. No fewer than 190 international organisations, government and non-governmental, in addition to the diplomatic missions, have a base in Geneva. At the heart of these is the United Nations, now largely housed in the old League of Nations buildings. Across the road from where I live, in Bursinel, Churchill in 1946 wrote his “United States of Europe” speech for delivery in Zurich. From this vantage point, it is possible to look backwards and forwards at the same time.
Close your eyes and cast yourself back in time. Something called “The Great War” has recently ended. So monumental was it that it is already being labelled “the War To End All Wars”, and all around you now, that hammering and banging you can hear represents the construction of something called “The League of Nations”. The trees they are planting look small, but fresh and promising. The institution that Churchill called “a milestone in the hard march of man” is taking shape around you. Beneath you, the lake and the Alps look pristine and shimmering in the sun.
Now open your eyes and fast-forward to the 21st century. This building you are in apparently has something to do with nations being “united”. The buildings have not changed but on the manicured lawns and pathways those trees have grown taller and more mature. All around you, discussions are being held about something called “human rights” and whether something called the “Security Council” should include more seats for something called the “European Union”. There is talk of some phenomenon called “UN Reform” and you are expected to have an opinion. It’s all too much. Best take a day off from the culture shock, go for a swim in the (slightly more polluted) lake, take a walk in the vineyards. Then draw breath and take stock.
With all those new international organisations now in existence, impressive progress has clearly been made. They apparently deal with extraordinary subjects such as “international telecommunications”, “refugees”, “world health”, something called “the environment” and a host of other issues. But with so much progress, why then do you feel a sense of déjà vu? And why that lingering anxiety that makes you feel distinctly uneasy about the future. At the back of your mind a darker political instinct about larger issues of war and peace rears its ugly head. Something insistent and unresolved hangs in the air.
2.
But listen! A debate is going on. Apparently, something called the “Human Rights Commission” was disbanded and replaced with something called the “UN Human Rights Council”. Delegates have been coming and going all these weeks, full of curiosity, but now you hear that this new Council is likely to be (nearly) as political as that old Commission. As a governmental body, how could the Council be otherwise? You hear from those who track “human rights matters” that this new body is about 7% less political than the old one: a slightly smaller number of villains and violators of human rights are now members, sitting in judgement on others.
The United States, you are told, is not a member of the new body but is active behind the scenes - it may join later. From your vantage point, you well remember not only the heroic efforts of President Wilson in constructing the League of Nations but his failure to convince Congress to bring the US itself into the League. The sense of déjà vu is disquieting. And now apparently, this “United Nations” is itself under pressure to undergo reform. You are asked what role the “European Union” should play, how the “Security Council” should be enlarged and what should be the role of something called “European peace-keeping troops”. Another cold swim in the lake is required to clear the head!
All right! After quick dip, a cold, tingling sense of clarity emerges. It is clear that a great deal of progress has been made in this business of international organisation. This fresh perspective, however, focuses largely on pace. “Civilization” H.G. Wells once wrote, “is a race between education and catastrophe”. The snapshot from Geneva sends a mixed message - much social and economic progress but dangerously less politicalachievement has been made.
Still, the progress of this new European Union they talk about has clearly been dramatic. Some day, a distant day in the future, the EU may indeed hold a single seat in the Security Council. But, for the moment, the permanent seats and vetoes of Britain and France are unlikely to be given up. Still, it is precisely because the Great Powers are so attached to “their” Security Council that there is ongoing consensus that European troops, like everyone else, need a UN mandate before taking the field. As was the case with the League (déjà vu!), the key player is the United States. This being Geneva, however, your memories tell you that those who now call for UN Reform must do more. They must fully engage, show the way, and lead. Demonstrate by their own example and commitment to human rights, international law, compliance, collective security and peace building that the League failure will not be repeated.
3.
This must be done because you, yourself, have noticed – after your brush with time travel – the continuing lack of respect from many countries for compliance. What are new to you - in your time capsule - are the exotic locations in which conflicts now erupt, or that the future is Chinese or Indian because of something called “globalisation”. But, even in a flatter world, there remains that disquieting sense of déjà vu. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. In the context of “UN Reform” it is clear that new attitudes are still needed.
The UN now needs far-sighted, entrepreneurialleadership. If he was alive today, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt might well say that the UN needs nothing less than a “New Deal”. Republican Abraham Lincoln might ask how long this Union (of Nations) can endure, an organization “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men (and women) are created equal”. Winston Churchill would want to press on with “the hard march of man”, but each leader would be determined, surely, that the millions tragically killed in war – the inspiration for the creation of these international political organisations – have not died in vain.
As for Europe and its allies, there is still a need, as President Kennedy might say, to ask not what the United Nations can do for you but what you can do for the United Nations.