The Secretary General has a largely symbolic role in the United Nations. While he does indeed have some power to control the agenda of the Security Council and General Assembly, the role of the Secretary is mainly to serve as a figurehead and administrator. In addition, the clout that comes with his role means that he can provide leadership and guidance for the UN as a whole. Finally, the Secretary General can also call upon special commissions to look into various matters and issue reports.
The Secretariat has been in the news recently when a change of power took place, as Kofi Annan left office to make way for Ban-Ki Moon. Annan's term as Secretary General had been marked by controversy - he himself had been implicated for corruption in the failed oil-for-food program meant to help the people of Iraq survive under sanctions, and had been held personally accountable for much of the UN's inaction during the Rwandan Genocide. Later, he issued a controversial report declaring that the atrocities in Darfur were not, in fact, genocide, but simply "crimes against humanity". While crimes against humanity are serious, they do not require the immediate intervention of other nations to stop the killing, as would be the case in a Genocide.
Ban-Ki Moon is a Korean and a career diplomat. His tenure has only just started, so he has not yet met with the same criticism as his predecessor. His task will be difficult however, as the United Nations struggles for relevance in the 21st century.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Security Council Part Two
This entry is a continuation of the previous one. Since the Security Council is one of the most important of the United Nations organs, I thought it would be well worth writing a second entry to further educate my readers.
The Security Council sits in New York, but if it wishes can also convene elsewhere. The work of the council means that it needs to address pressing issues of today, so it is often in the news. One of the main criticisms of the council, alongside the criticism of its membership, is that the council has often been shy of ordering the use of military might. Now, this may seem sensible in an organization such as the UN which is devoted to world peace, but many critics believe that the Security Council has failed the victims of atrocities the world over by failing to act. For example, the United Nations remained basically paralyzed and useless during the Rwandan Genocide, when between 800 thousand and 1 million people were mass murdered. Today, the Security Council is unable to take action in Darfur, where the UN estimates 450 thousand people have been killed through an ongoing conflict. This is because China, a permanent member with the veto power, has extensive trade relations with Sudan, and needs Sudan's oil to fuel its huge energy needs.
Another test of the Security Council came before the US led war in Iraq. The threat of a French veto meant that the US had to simply circumvent the council and launch a war outside of the UN framework. What it did prove, however, was that even the mighty US sought the Council's nod before going to war.
The Security Council sits in New York, but if it wishes can also convene elsewhere. The work of the council means that it needs to address pressing issues of today, so it is often in the news. One of the main criticisms of the council, alongside the criticism of its membership, is that the council has often been shy of ordering the use of military might. Now, this may seem sensible in an organization such as the UN which is devoted to world peace, but many critics believe that the Security Council has failed the victims of atrocities the world over by failing to act. For example, the United Nations remained basically paralyzed and useless during the Rwandan Genocide, when between 800 thousand and 1 million people were mass murdered. Today, the Security Council is unable to take action in Darfur, where the UN estimates 450 thousand people have been killed through an ongoing conflict. This is because China, a permanent member with the veto power, has extensive trade relations with Sudan, and needs Sudan's oil to fuel its huge energy needs.
Another test of the Security Council came before the US led war in Iraq. The threat of a French veto meant that the US had to simply circumvent the council and launch a war outside of the UN framework. What it did prove, however, was that even the mighty US sought the Council's nod before going to war.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Security Council, part one
Welcome to part two of your continued tour of the United Nations. Since reading my blog is cheaper than taking the guided tour of the UN building in New York, you should all realize you're getting a great deal out of this one.
The Security Council - part one
The Security Council was established in an attempt to make the United Nations more reflective of the actual power balance in the world at the time. Unfortunately, that time was only just after the Second World War, so the situation then doesn't necessarily reflect the one now. The Security Council is charged with keeping the peace by the UN Charter, and as such can authorize the use of force to maintain international stability. In an effort to limit this power, five members of the council were given the veto power, which allows them the ability to defeat any motion by the rest of the council. This right was given to the nuclear powers of the time: the United States, the USSR (now Russia), China (now the Peoples Republic of China), France and Britain. This veto right made these actors much more powerful than the other temporary council members, which cannot defeat motions with a single vote.
There is much debate about whether permanent membership should be abolished or reformed. Smaller states sometimes feel that the predominance of these large nations is harmful to their national interests. Some commentators believe that the list of permanent members is incomplete. Where, for example, is India, a nation of a billion people, a huge economy and nuclear weaponry? Where is Japan, one of the central actors in international politics and economy? Why are there no African, South American or Central Asian nations with permanent membership?
The Security Council - part one
The Security Council was established in an attempt to make the United Nations more reflective of the actual power balance in the world at the time. Unfortunately, that time was only just after the Second World War, so the situation then doesn't necessarily reflect the one now. The Security Council is charged with keeping the peace by the UN Charter, and as such can authorize the use of force to maintain international stability. In an effort to limit this power, five members of the council were given the veto power, which allows them the ability to defeat any motion by the rest of the council. This right was given to the nuclear powers of the time: the United States, the USSR (now Russia), China (now the Peoples Republic of China), France and Britain. This veto right made these actors much more powerful than the other temporary council members, which cannot defeat motions with a single vote.
There is much debate about whether permanent membership should be abolished or reformed. Smaller states sometimes feel that the predominance of these large nations is harmful to their national interests. Some commentators believe that the list of permanent members is incomplete. Where, for example, is India, a nation of a billion people, a huge economy and nuclear weaponry? Where is Japan, one of the central actors in international politics and economy? Why are there no African, South American or Central Asian nations with permanent membership?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)