We need to be ambitious if the UN is to become more effective and more accountable, writes Dermot Ahern.
This month's UN summit in New York will present world leaders with the opportunity to deliver the most radical overhaul of the United Nations since its foundation in 1945.
I am concerned, however, that in these final days of preparation, UN members, with widely divergent concerns and interests, will focus chiefly on those proposals that cause them most discomfort. Such an approach risks a lowering of ambition. I am worried that valuable elements of the summit package could be negotiated away.
The United Nations was founded on the determination of nations to save succeeding generations from war, to advance human rights and equality, and to promote better standards of life in larger freedom.
Our achievements over its 60-year history offer irrefutable proof that humanity can deliver on this determination. The eradication of smallpox, the halving of child mortality rates, the ending of apartheid, and our successes in international peacekeeping, show clearly that the UN system, though imperfect, can deliver.
Our failures however - Rwanda, Srebrenica, persistent famine and the ongoing abuse of human rights - indicate that the UN system must deliver more effectively, decisively and swiftly. Reform, therefore, is a clear imperative for all nations of the UN.
The proposals before us are holistic. They are based on the recognition that without development there will be no security, without security there will be no development, and without respect for human rights there will be neither. Cherry-picking those elements one supports while rejecting, or watering down, those that require a stretch makes no sense intellectually. Nor is it a viable political strategy, given the need for wide consensus.
Inevitably, further work will be required after the summit, no matter how positive its outcome. But leaders need to agree clearly on the directions to be followed.
Secretary-general Kofi Annan has asked states to commit themselves to the steps necessary to ensure that the millennium development goals are achieved by 2015, and to make a special effort to meet the needs of Africa, which has been falling seriously behind.
The goals are not utopian. They include, for instance, access to primary health care for all, and to primary education for all children, and are eminently achievable with political will.
The capacity exists to fight back against the scourges of HIV/Aids and malaria, if the resources are mobilised and applied. To achieve these aims, we in the developed world must make more and better quality aid resources available, and the developing countries must fulfil their commitments to good governance. No one is asked to make new commitments, but to live up to those already made. The new EU pledge to reach the 0.7 per cent target by 2015 is very much to be welcomed. The EU's interim target alone will release an additional €20 billion by 2010.
Trade is a powerful engine for growth and development. For many in the developing world, trade is more significant than aid. We must therefore commit ourselves to making early progress on completing the Doha round of international trade negotiations while ensuring that the legitimate interests of all are respected.
In recent months we have all seen once again the awful reality of terrorism, in London, in Sharm el-Sheik, in Turkey and elsewhere. In a globalised world, no country is immune from this threat and its consequences. Kofi Annan has proposed new mechanisms to tackle this increasingly complex challenge, including a clear universal definition of terrorism, and these should be fully supported.
Recent progress in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, where the challenges are considerable, has been disappointing. We cannot ignore the threat posed to our security by weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. We must renew our commitment to the twin and mutually reinforcing goals of disarmament and non-proliferation. In particular, we must restore momentum to our efforts to reinforce the authority of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to ensure its continued credibility and relevance. We must also find an effective means of controlling the deadly trade in small arms and light weapons.
We need to do much more to build peace and solid institutions in countries emerging from years of civil strife, to ensure that they do not revert to conflict. There has been a near-universal welcome for the proposal to create a peacebuilding commission to mobilise resources for this purpose and ensure their effective use. Let us work hard to get it up and running by the beginning of 2006. Differences over its structure and membership must not be allowed to cause delay.
Leaders at the summit must make it clear, once and for all, that the world will no longer tolerate gross abuses of human rights and genocide. The prevention of such abuses is a primary task of sovereign governments. Some are understandably reluctant to sign up to anything that would undermine their sovereign prerogatives, guaranteed under article 2 of the UN charter. However, where governments do not exercise this sovereignty, and prove unwilling or unable to assume the responsibility to protect their citizens, the international community has a right and a duty to step in. The proposals before the summit make it abundantly clear that the use of military force in such cases would be a last resort, and subject to the authorisation of the UN Security Council in accordance with the UN charter.
There is also a growing acceptance of the need for the United Nations to do better in the human rights area. Many governments have, therefore, embraced the proposal to replace the Commission on Human Rights with a standing body, a human rights council with members elected by a two-thirds majority in the UN general assembly. Others are moving towards acceptance of the proposal in principle. Discussions are likely to continue beyond the summit on the structure and mandate of the new body. Whatever is agreed must ensure the preservation of the best features of the Commission of Human Rights, including its very valuable engagement with non-governmental organisations, while enhancing the effectiveness of the UN in fulfilling one of its central purposes.
The summit must also take a hard look at the organisation itself. It also needs to look at the overloaded agenda of the general assembly and the role of the economic and social council. It must also strengthen its secretariat. Although the chief responsibility for the abuses surrounding the implementation of the Iraq sanctions rests with those member states that supervised it, the betrayal of trust by some UN officials has been deeply disappointing. We must put in place measures to ensure that UN staff are fully accountable.
As envoy of the secretary-general, I have urged governments to look constructively at his proposals. In the European Union and in the wider Europe, most recognise the need for change and support the programme for reform. Many in other regions of the world, among them colleagues with bitter first-hand experience of deep poverty and conflict, also recognise the need for a new approach. Others, however, remain reluctant to allow many of the proposed changes come into effect at this time.
Intensive consultations continue in New York, driven forward by my colleague from Gabon, Jean Ping, as president of the general assembly. With my four fellow envoys, I will be working closely with the secretary-general in the final phase of the negotiations.
I urge UN members to concentrate during the days ahead on the gains that a positive outcome will bring: progress in addressing the threats and challenges that confront us, in strengthening the rule of law and democracy, and in ensuring that the UN becomes more responsive, effective and accountable. This will require compromise and effort all round. But the challenges of theturbulent world in which we live require an ambitious response.
Dermot Ahern TD is Minister for Foreign Affairs