The independent commentary on British political affairs.
The independent commentary on British political affairs.
May 2008
Vol. 11, No. 11
A People's War: Brenda Boardman | The shadow over Brown's plan's to change the way we are governed: … More…
Available for subscribers to download now, in the Print Magazine section.
This article is provided free-to-view for all visitors to thepolitician.org.
In a speech in Bangalore on 17 January Gordon Brown said that the United Nations, NATO, the IMF and the World Bank must all be ‘reshaped for the needs of our time’. He wanted the UN to become more effective in peace-keeping, and to this end it should be ‘modernized and reformed’. The IMF should be re-equipped so that it could forecast coming monetary crises in member countries and the global economic system. The World Bank should deal more with energy security and environmental issues. And NATO should acquire a ‘new modern and expanded role’ with regard to peace-keeping.
Anyone who is familiar with the world of international institutions will find all of this rather old hat. The United Nations has been in a state of more or less continuous reform and modernization since the 1970s with regard to its staffing, its budgetary arrangements, its management of economic and social questions and its peace-keeping arrangements. The main stumbling block in recent years has been with the membership of the Security Council. It is a long story, but the problem is that the obvious candidates — like India whose membership Brown not surprisingly supported — are often strongly opposed, often by one or other of the veto powers (P5), and membership is subject to the veto and needs a two-thirds majority in the general assembly.
However, as regards further peace-keeping reforms there are things Brown could push for: strengthening the Department of Peacekeeping, improvements to the command and control mechanisms, creating something like a UN army, and better and independent UN intelligence collection? The British government, the US and other P5 members have in the past opposed changes in these areas, so the support of the next prime minister would be encouraging. The problem with effective UN action is, however, little to do with its organization or staff. It is getting the permanent members to agree to do something. It seems unlikely that the new secretary general will have more luck with this than did Kofi Annan. Mr Brown will need to build consensus among the P5 to bring change here.
There is probably a much better chance of changing the two Bretton Woods organizations on the lines proposed by Mr Brown. The IMF lost its original role as a lender of last resort for countries experiencing monetary problems in the 1970s, and since then has taken on the role of deciding which states have reformed enough to borrow from other financial agencies. The IMF issued policy advice which often had disastrous social consequences, and a number of countries that recovered well from a financial crisis, such as Malaysia, did so largely by ignoring what the IMF said. There is a real need for a high quality early warning system, something that could trigger action before a full blown financial crisis. US academic economists have supported this idea, and Mr Brown’s support would help. But again be warned: IMF neo-liberal officials have strong support in Washington.
On the World Bank changes, the problem is that the current US administration takes a Promethean view of environmental questions. The world will rise from the ashes no matter how badly it has been damaged. The US has the most votes in both the IMF and the World Bank. Could there be enough overlap in approaches to environmental questions advocated by its leading members on which to base a World Bank policy? On energy security there would probably be a consensus that the World Bank could develop a role.
Mr Brown wants NATO to develop a stronger capacity for involvement in humanitarian crises around the world in addition to a war fighting capacity, presumably as a full time adjunct of the Security Council. When the Kosovo crisis blew up NATO was asked to act, and took on responsibility for fighting Milosevic’s forces, even though the alliance was only supposed to act within the territory of its members. Kosovo was close enough, and could just about be defended under chapter 8 of the Charter, which concerns action by regional organizations. But should NATO act as a UN agent in the Middle East or in Africa or other distant future trouble spots? It is true that NATO is the most effective military alliance around, but giving it a global role is likely to be contentious. It could end up with the Atlantic and European states increasingly being involved in distant places and increasingly attracting hostility. On the other hand Britain should continue giving financial and equipment support to regional organizations, such as the African Union, which are valuable in promoting security between their members, and satisfy the terms of Chapter 8 of the Charter.
Mr Brown presented a wish list to his Indian hosts about how to deal with the problems of the globalised world, but much of it is whistling in the wind. The one institution where the case for change is fairly non-contentious, and there is just about enough support for doing something, is probably the IMF. With the UN the problem is getting sufficient agreement among the P5 to make it work, which last happened in the early 1990s. It would, however, be a great achievement if a British prime minister succeeded in persuading the US Republican administration to take the UN more seriously.
Paul Taylor is Emeritus Professor of International Relations. Until July 2004 he was Director of the European Institute at the London School of Economics, where he specialised in international organisation within the EU and the UN system. Most recently he has published ‘International Organization in the Age of Globalization’, Continuum, 2003, paperback version, June 2005.