The United Nations faces serious challenges - the same challenges that stand before humanity in general. What path to take? The organisation that was built on the ruins of the World War II, the same organization that survived the Cold War and has made an extraordinary contribution to the prevention of global conflict, is now at a crossroads: it will either be reformed, or it will disappear. The former will require strength not only of its own political will, but also that of its member states. No one seriously desires the disappearance of the UN but, unfortunately, the road to destruction is often paved with good intentions.
Beyond merely goodwill, the reformation of the UN will require a vision. For that, it is essential that the member states of the UN relinquish some of their individual interests. It is this sacrifice that will be the most difficult achievement in a world that has long been ruled by the greed of real politics.
It seems, at the moment, that the main political struggle over the reform of the United Nations is being conducted on two levels: between the permanent members of the Security Council and the emerging political powers and within the permanent body of the Security Council itself. It seems as if all of the other UN member states have been cast aside in this battle as mere “voting machinery” without any real power, permanently under pressure from the larger powers to acquiesce to their demands.
The Republic of Macedonia falls into this last category. It is a state still undergoing a process of transition, aspiring to NATO membership, and awaiting EU membership negotiations. In short, it is a state that “stands in line and waits”, situated in a region subject to a syndrome of “standing in line and waiting” but which is referred to in the regional context as “destiny”.
The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly, Macedonia faces internal divisions in terms of language, ethnicity and religion. Secondly, there are problems related to its constitutional name, which is disputed by the Republic of Greece, the problems with the status of its language, disputed by Republic of Bulgaria, and the refusal of the powerful Serbian Church to recognize the autonomy of the Macedonian Orthodox Church. All of these create a sense of profound insecurity among its citizens, who are led to believe that the solution to these problems lies in the acquisition of Macedonian membership of these institutions.
However, since the solution to these problems requires the support of both the US and the EU countries, Macedonia has to decide which side to take. The Republic of Macedonia supports and contributes, in accordance with its abilities, to the reform processes that are taking place in the UN system. However, when there are more serious political decisions to be made on the UN agenda Macedonia must decide whether to support the position of the US or that of the EU. The result is that the country finds itself participating in the military missions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Iraq.
Needles to say, it would be best for Macedonia to have its own position and to stick to it. However, there remains a huge gap between what we might wish for and what we can realistically achieve. The fact is that friendly relations with the US are important to Macedonian aspirations of NATO membership and it should be acknowledged that the US has recognized the Republic of Macedonia under its constitutional name, something that the majority of the countries of the European Union have not done. Yet, relations with EU member states are also important, given not only the clear desire of Macedonian citizens to join the Union, but also the overall progress and development of the region. Sadly, the UN has also only recognised Macedonia under its temporary name of FYROM. The only two member states with permanent seats in the UN Security Council that do not recognize the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia, are the two European states; states that are known as “cradle” of the world democracy and the fight for that human rights and liberties that constitute the core values of the UN Charter.
The European Union is a historical project; one that is intended to revive Europe’s leading role in the progress of humanity. But the creation of the Union requires both time and strength. Until that becomes a reality, the EU foreign and security policy will be subject to internal disagreements and compromises, and there will be little or no room for the pursuit of higher principles and values. Therefore, the ability of the EU to offer significant contribution in the search for a new role for the UN, and especially that of the Security Council, should be questioned. That is why I believe that a representative from the Federal Republic of Germany, rather than an EU representative, should participate in the Security Council. Germany is a strong advocate for the implementation of the European idea, and has proven its commitment to the fight for peace, stability and prosperity in the world.
It is clear that the much needed reform of the UN will not be easy to achieve, particularly since we still face the dilemma of which path to take. The end of the Cold War may have closed chapter, but it also raised many other extremely serious issues. These issues have been subject to wildly varying interpretations dependent not only on the particular interests but also on the cultural patterns of individual states. Such entrenched difficulties may provoke the response that the quest for the answer to the question of which path the United Nations should take is a “never-ending story”. But it is the quest for change in itself that is important, for without it the UN is as good as dead, and nobody wants that.