Thinking Aloud:
Expectations of the United Nations in a Post-September 11 World
By Michael W. Sonnenfeldt

In this post-September 11 (2001) world, where the consequences of globalization have been punctuated by a new, frightening and unprecedented sense of global vulnerability, what should we expect of the United Nations?

On 10 November 2001, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly and in his characteristically hushed tone condemned the forces of terror and pledged United Nations full support and cooperation in the battle against terrorism. Yet, he also gently reminded the assembled dignitaries that while the world had indeed changed, “none of the issues that faced us on September 10th had become any less urgent”.

In 1946, the year the United Nations Organization moved to its new Headquarters in New York, the state’s Governor Thomas E. Dewey proposed and received legislative approval for the development of a “World Trade Center”. Its South Tower was completed in 1971, when this photograph, showing an aerial view of the island of Manhattan and its neighbourhood, was taken, with the WTC in the foreground and the United Nations buildings towards the island’s east and centre. (UN Photo)

In a sense, the events of “9/11” have sent the United Nations back to its inception when, in the aftermath of a devastating war, the world body was established to stabilize international relations, and give peace and security a stronger foundation. Mr. Annan reminded us that even in a drastically changed and changing world, that mission continues to provide a compass for the Organization. And the best way to respond to today’s heightened global vulnerability is for the United Nations to continue its life-saving work around the world: fighting poverty, reducing hunger, providing better health care, preventing and containing conflict, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, defending human rights, protecting the environment and promoting democracy.

Since the United Nations founding, considerable progress has been made. We produce enough food for a growing population. Infant mortality in developing countries has been cut nearly in half since 1970. Life expectancy has increased by ten years. The gap between rich and poor countries has declined. Through humanitarian and development programmes around the world, the hungry are being fed and the sick are being treated. The poor are given loans to start businesses, girls are kept in school, and the needs of mothers and children are being met. We are beginning to understand how human activity affects the environment. We are in the midst of an information revolution that will bring unparalleled access to knowledge. We know that open markets create more wealth, and open societies are more just. The world’s poorest nations, crushed by the burden of debt, are receiving debt relief, freeing resources for education, health and growth. We have come closer together to advance common global interests and values through the United Nations and other multilateral institutions.

But this promising future is far from certain. The potential of far too many is still being squandered. We should expect the United Nations to redouble its efforts to reduce poverty - one of the root causes of the despair and hopelessness that gives rise to terrorism. Today, virtually 3 billion people - nearly half the world’s population - survive on less than $2 a day. Forty million people a year die of hunger and over a billion lack access to safe drinking water. Over the next ten years in Africa, AIDS is expected to kill more people and orphan more children than all the wars of the twentieth century combined.

And each year, fully preventable diseases, like malaria, tuberculosis and pneumonia, leave millions of children without parents, and millions of parents without children. No country can break poverty’s bonds if its people are disabled by disease and its Government overwhelmed by the needs of the ill. Still, powerful and dangerous forces are violently resisting these advances. Primitive claims of racial, ethnic or religious superiority, when married to advanced weaponry and terrorism, threaten to destroy the greatest potential for human development in history.

Will we ever be free from the fear of weapons of mass destruction? Will globalization bring shared prosperity or make the desperate of the world even more desperate? Will science and technology be used to increase the world economy and protect the environment, or put them at further risk? Our remarkable progress has not fully resolved these issues, but it has generated a clearer road map for the new millennium and provides markers for a new set of challenges which helps to shape reasonable expectations of the United Nations in the years ahead.

The Organization is not a sovereign body, and decision-making within the UN system is not easy. All actions by the United Nations depend on the will of its Member States to accept, fund and carry them out. In matters of peacekeeping especially, a complex, often slow, process of consensus-building is required that takes into account the often opposing perceptions of national sovereignty and global needs. But precisely because of these obstacles agreements ultimately reached have far more weight internationally.

A second reasonable expectation of the United Nations is to work harder to strengthen the capacity of the international community to prevent and stop outbreaks of mass killing and civilian displacement. This requires shared responsibility. During the Kosovo conflict, the Secretary-General spoke forcefully when he said that “ethnic cleansers and mass murderers can find no refuge in the United Nations, and no source of comfort or justification in its Charter”. The world expects more to make these words real. The United Nations should vigorously pursue an international coalition against genocide and bring nations together to stop the flow of money and arms to those who commit crimes against humanity. And when the world is faced with deliberate, organized campaigns to murder whole peoples or expel them from their land, the care for victims is important but not enough. Decisive steps need to be taken to end such violence quickly. Some lessons seem to have been learned from the tragic failure in Rwanda-West African nations acted to restore peace in Sierra Leone; the North Atlantic Treaty Organization stopped ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Kosovo; and Asian and Pacific nations have provided security in East Timor.

The responses to each of these crises cannot or should not be the same. Sometimes, collective military force is both appropriate and feasible. At other times, concerted economic and political pressure, combined with diplomacy, is a better answer. We can and should expect the United Nations to lay out the options, work hard to build coalitions and provide leadership. The way the international community ultimately responds depends upon the capacity of countries to act on their perception of their national interests. But reminding the world in as forceful a manner as possible not to abdicate its collective responsibility under such circumstances is among the highest expectations we can have of the United Nations. It must also do better to lay the groundwork for maintaining the peace once the conflict has ended.

Specifically, there is a critical need for countries emerging from conflict to build police institutions accountable to the rule of law, often with the help of civilian police from other nations.

In the wake of September 11, however, the greatest expectation of the United Nations is to move aggressively against the possibility that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will ever be used again. The world has seen constant advances in the destructive power of weaponry. Planners fear additional terrorist attacks that could easily wreak unprecedented havoc utilizing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or other means which defy traditional classification, like dirty bombs, turning airplanes into missiles, etc. These new methods are no less threatening to our society and our expectations for the future. This trend can continue, or we can reverse it with specific initiatives to address these threats, and by implementing global norms and standards of behaviour that are universally respected. Some general progress has been made, but with the United States and other Western countries wondering whether terrorists will turn their nuclear power plants into weapons of mass destruction, the urgency for preventing such horrific acts has become all the more immediate. The spread of nuclear weapons materials and expertise must be stopped at the source. It is true that the nightmare scenario of deadly weapons flowing unchecked across borders, and of scientists selling their services, en masse, to the highest bidder, has been reduced. But the consequences of even one successful attack are so horrific that much more needs to be done.

The tragic events of September 11 bring home the challenge of keeping deadly options from terrorist groups, who may have weaker capabilities than States, but have less compunction about using such weapons. The possibility of terrorist threats cannot be met with panic. It requires serious and deliberate disciplined efforts and the effective cooperation of the international community. Strong leadership by the United Nations and other global institutions will be critical to effectively confront these frightening risks. The United Nations should play a lead role in these efforts, although at other times a supporting role may yield a better outcome. Regardless, the moral authority the United Nations generally projects, and the irreplaceable infrastructure for multilateral communications it provides, ensure that it can and should have a central role in addressing the challenges that must be met for our common survival and advancement.

Links:
The Humpty Dumpty Institute

Michael W. Sonnenfeldt is co-Chair of the Humpty Dumpty Institute (HDI), a private New York-based non-governmental organization dedicated to building effective public/private partnerships to enhance the United States-United Nations relationship.