Do We Really Want A Reformed United Nations? A Special Interview With Richard Gowan
Fridays with MUNPlanet brings you a special interview with @Richard Gowan on the occasion of the Sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, covering the questions of UN reform, power and future of the Security Council, global governance and the importance of MUNs for getting by in the world of world politics.
Richard Gowan is Research Director at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, as well as a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR). He is researching and publishing on various aspects of the United Nations system, peacekeeping and multilateral security institutions. Also, he is a contributor to many newspapers, policy magazines and websites. His column “Diplomatic Fallout” is published weekly for World Politics Review.
MUNPlanet: What is the current status of the UN reform and can we expect UN70 to bring about any serious change in the pace and dynamics of the reform?
Richard Gowan: My expectations for formal UN reforms, such as Security Council reform, are not very high. It simply isn’t a priority for the U.S. and other big powers right now. Even states that aspire to permanent seats on the Security Council, like Germany and India, have bigger worries. Debates about UN reform in New York have become circular and a bit pointless. There is a much higher chance of an agreement on the post-2015 development agenda next year, and even of something serious on climate change. When people tell me they want to concentrate on Security Council reform, I generally suggest that they look for a more concrete and rewarding hobby, such as fly-fishing or basket-weaving.
What really matters today is how new threats to the international system, like the Islamic State or Ebola, are forcing the UN to change informally. We have seen the UN adapt quite radically in the past, as in the evolution of peacekeeping, without changes to its Charter. I think that this will remain the case in future: most change at the UN will be pragmatic, events-driven and largely detached from more formal reform debates. Of course, this threatens the formal decision-making structures in New York with mounting irrelevance, and I would like to see real changes to the Security Council in theory. But what do we want more: A reformed UN or an unreformed UN that is able to fight Ebola?
I’d go with the second option, and I think any sane person would do so too.
“When people tell me they want to concentrate on Security Council reform, I generally suggest that they look for a more concrete and rewarding hobby, such as fly-fishing or basket-weaving.”
MUNPlanet: The Security Council reform is probably the single most important test of the UN’s capacity to transform in the 21st century. Under what conditions could the great powers revoke or limit the use of the veto, and still keep the system “stable”?
Richard Gowan: The idea that the P5 might limit their use of the veto in mass atrocity situations is appealing because it wouldn’t require any formal alterations to the UN Charter. The P5 members would simply have to make a gentleman’s agreement to limit their use of the veto in certain serious crises. Despite the repeated clashes over Syria, the P5 already demonstrate quite a lot of restraint in this regard. You rarely see arguments over African crises, which still take up 60% of the Security Council’s time, degenerate to the point where a veto is used. This year we have seen Russia and China sign up to two quite detailed resolutions calling for increased aid to Syria for example, even though Moscow was suspicious of both. Beijing really wanted to avoid being associated with vetoing a humanitarian agreement. So I think that there is a partial trend towards veto restraint.
France has suggested a more detailed agreement on the issue. It has support from members of the General Assembly but not the rest of the P5. The UK and US fear that Russia and China wouldn’t stick to any deal. The Russians and Chinese simply reject the whole notion out of hand. But it’s a nice idea and we should keep on talking about it.
