Tackling reform at the UN

By Greg Barrow BBC correspondent at the UN

As the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan appoints a panel to examine reform of the organisation, our correspondent looks at what has driven the desire for change, and some of the issues likely to arise in coming months.

The very first page of the Charter of the United Nations sets out the mission of this organisation, established more than 50 years ago, against the backdrop of World War II.

"We, the peoples of the United Nations," it says, "determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind."

The UN was sharply divided over the war in Iraq

But the question now being asked is whether the charter has failed to adapt to the realities of the modern world, leaving the UN ill-equipped to fulfil its objectives.

Back in 1945, it was the victorious allies in World War II, the United States, Britain, Russia, China and France, who called the shots in drafting the UN charter.

They also placed themselves at the very top of the diplomatic table in the UN, carving out a role for five permanent members of the Security Council, the UN's central decision-making body, and awarding themselves the power of veto over any resolutions the council might come to consider.

More than half a century has passed since then, and with the exception of the US, the original five permanent members can hardly claim to represent a group of the world's most powerful and influential nations.

Countries like Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, or Nigeria, from the wider membership of the UN, could stake a more convincing claim for a place at the top table, on the basis of power or regional influence, and they have led the calls for UN reform.

Saying, not doing

It is a subject that everybody at the UN likes to talk about, but precious little has been achieved in terms of real action.

In recent months, the debate has been re-invigorated as diplomats reflect on the fall-out of the US-led military intervention in Iraq.

In the run up to the war, the Security Council found itself deeply divided between a pro and an anti-war camp.

The UN must mean something - remember Rwanda or Kosovo? President George W Bush

By early March, it became apparent that the council was paralysed, and Washington and its allies abandoned their attempt to get a resolution that would have authorised military intervention.

Speaking at a summit with the British and Spanish prime ministers in the Azores, just a few days before they decided to give up and go it alone, US President George W Bush served a warning that Washington was not impressed by the UN, and what it had to offer.

"The UN must mean something," he said. "Remember Rwanda or Kosovo?

"The UN didn't do its job. We hope tomorrow the UN will do its job. If not, all of us need to step back and try to figure out how to make the UN work better as we head into the 21st century."

'Fork in the road'

Nothing much came of this, until it was picked up by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, several months after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In the run up to the UN General Assembly in September, Mr Annan urged world leaders to make UN reform a theme in their speeches at this annual gathering of world leaders, and when he stepped up to the podium on the opening day of the General Assembly, Mr Annan led by example.

"Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road," Mr Annan said. "This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded."

Mr Annan went on to lay out a carefully argued case for UN reform, lobbying member states to take the necessary steps to ensure the continued relevance of this organisation in the 21st century.

He proposed that member states should revisit the argument about the need to expand the UN Security Council, and in a controversial section of the speech, the secretary general urged member states to start a debate on whether the time had come to consider the possibility of asking the Security Council to authorise pre-emptive action.

Annan says the UN has some tough choices to make

"The council needs to consider how it will deal with the possibility that individual states may use force pre-emptively, against perceived threats," he said.

"Its members need to begin a discussion on the criteria for an early authorisation of coercive measures to address certain types of threats, for instance, terrorist groups armed with weapons of mass destruction."

And in case any of the UN's 191 member states were not listening, he left them with something to ponder.

"I believe the time is ripe for a hard look at fundamental policy issues, and at the structural changes that may be needed to strengthen them," he said. "History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass."

The challenge now is to turn these thoughts into action, and the biggest obstacle may be the UN charter, itself which entrenches the power of some member states above others.

If real reform of the UN is going to take place, some nations, like Britain, for example, may have to accept that they no longer deserve their place among the permanent five members of the UN Security Council.

Others, like the United States, might have to accept the loss of their power of veto, or at the very least, an agreement to share that power among a wider number of member states.

To give up these privileges for the sake of UN reform would be an act of diplomatic generosity never before witnessed among member states, and even Mr Annan must realise that he is unlikely to achieve everything that he has suggested.

At best, he may hope for the kind of debate among the UN membership that leads to fresh ideas and new interpretations of the existing UN charter, so that the division and discord of earlier this year, in the run up to the military intervention in Iraq, is avoided in the future.