| Titre : | Naciones Unidas como principal elemento del multilateralismo del siglo XXI |
| Auteurs : | Angel lobo Garcia ; Centro superior de estudios de la defensa nacional |
| Type de document : | Books |
| Editeur : | Venezuela : Ministerio de la Defensa, 2009 |
| Article en page(s) : | 1 vol. (321 p.) |
| Collection : | Monografías del CESEDEN, num. 109 |
| ISBN/ISSN/EAN : | 978-84-9781-480-5 |
| Index. décimale : | 341.23 |
| Tags : | Nations Unies |
| Résumé : |
At the dawn of a new century, the United Nations stands at a crossroads in its role as the world´s main organization entrusted with maintaining international peace and security. The Charter and its key elements –above all, the then threats to peace and the decisionmaking rules at the Council- were designed for a different world than the one we currently live in. A different world which carries with it both grand projects and chances for bettering the lives of millions of human beings, but also very challenging threats which exceed the capacities of single States, even the most powerful ones. Some of the threats are usually termed as “new”, as opposed to “old” ones such as conventional warfare. International terrorism, the effects of which we have seen both in the attacks on 9/11 in New York, 3/11 in Madrid or just recently in Bombay, and which benefits from an ever globalized world, provides an example. This is an issue dealt with by Juan Avilés in chapter 2 of this publication. The United Nations has evolved from some lukewarm, even lenient positions with regards to terrorism (particularly at the General Assembly), towards outright condemnation of such acts and of those States who harbor terrorists. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 was a tipping point in this respect, as it states that terrorism is a threat to peace, thus bringing it under the Charter´s key provisions on security. These positive steps are not without hurdles, as the UN Member States still fail to agree on a common definition of terrorism and adopt a general treaty. Regardless, the UN does significantly contribute to the fight against this phenomenon, inasmuch as, on the one hand, it bestows such a fight with universal legitimacy, and on the other, it strengthens international cooperation through all of the measures outlined in the 2006 World´s Strategy. Nonetheless, not all of the threats are that new, although they are equally worrying. This is the case of traditional inter-State wars –again, wars which are acquiring a different nature with a blurred mix of non-State actors and militias, in a context of fragmented violence (as, for instance, 2008 Iraq or this summer´s Georgia-Russian war show). And it is also the case of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which so profoundly shaped strategic thinking during the Cold War, the initial phase of the UN, as Ángel Lobo, Chairman of the Group, points out in his Introduction. This topic is the subject of Chapter 3, written by José Quevedo. The proliferation of WMD remains a concern in and on itself, but also is a concern their mastering by terrorist groups, a further evidence that today´s threats to global security are linked; as the UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change underlined in its 2004 Report. It is a worrying trend both the intention of some States (as Iran) to turn into nuclear powers, as is that of the “haves” not to honor their commitments. In this new strategic setting, the need to reach a consensus among the several key players is definitely crucial. The UN multilateral system to halt proliferation has been jeopardized over the last years for these reasons, and for the lack of advances in the field of nuclear disarmament. Notwithstanding, there are voices, some of them from reputed policymakers and diplomats, who increasingly call for the abandonment of the nuclear deterrence as a basic element of States´ security. With the leadership of the UN, this might pave the way for serious progress in non-proliferation. Thus nowadays multilateralism, with the UN at its core, must tackle a set of issues which relate to one another in a complex manner but which in the end affect all countries and peoples. Issues described throughout this CESEDEN publication, as are climate change, transnational criminal networks, extreme poverty, etc., and which call for a new security consensus, not only State-centric, based on military alliances to stave off external agressions, but also a framework which emphasizes the notion of human security. As it is pictured in the opening Chapter, by Rosa Riquelme, there is an increasing recognition that the so-called triad of security, development and human rights must be at the core of the new consensus. Furthermore and relatedly, over the last years we have witnessed the emergence of a principle on the responsibility to protect peoples from mass atrocities, in scenarios such as Rwanda, Srebrenica or Darfur, a responsibility which should be exercised by the international community through the several means available. Therefore, from diplomacy and inducements to more coercive tools such as sanctions and, if necessary, the use of military force under certain conditions. This principle on the responsability to protect (RTP) is now reflected on a number of important UN resolutions (above all, the 2005 World Summit Outcome document) and some scenarios which would call for its application. Regardless, we are far from seeing a consensus in this respect, particularly as regards the use of force and how it would transform the old Charter-based principles of sovereignty and non-intervention in internal matters of the States. Importantly, the RTP stems from the awareness that most of today´s conflicts are internal, or rather, “internationalized internal wars” with a plurality of actors and interests interacting in failed States (Somalia being the paramount example), but with a common pattern of fragmented, conscience-shocking violence which begs for collective action. Usually, this international intervention takes place through peacekeeping missions, analyzed in chapter IV, by Alfonso Iglesias, who examines their different categories, features, lessons learned as well as prospects for the future. These operations were originally not foreseen by the UN charter and resulted from the limits of a system of international security constrained by Cold War´s politics. They are usual practice since the 1950´s and have at times proved to be a useful tool for dealing with many crises, increasingly in partnership with other regional organizations having capacities in this field, as the EU or the African Union. However, peacekeeping operations are also undergoing a process of reassessment of their upsides and downsides, the best example of which was the 2000 Brahimi Report, in the aftermath of some dramatic failures of the 90s. Failures, as highlighted in Angel Lobo´s Introduction, of the international comunity as a whole. These failures, it is important to note, underlined the need to carry out an overall, deep reassessment of both the philosophy underpinning international interventions –deemed to be too reaction-oriented- and of the wide array of tools at the disposal of the UN together with other key global players (such as the international financial institutions, civil society actors and so forth). On the one hand, prevention of conflicts has come to the fore of the UN agenda, arising from the need to -in the words of former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan- evolve “from a culture of reaction towards a culture of prevention”, which goes to the heart of the UN´s ultimate mission as set forth in the Charter. Prevention through proactive diplomacy, structural changes in conflict-prone societies (above all, development and good governance) and, if need be, forceful intervention in accordance with the Charter, to halt the humanitarian consequences of failed States. Furthermore, stable peace will not be just guaranteed by short-term interventions, but with protracted peacebulding efforts aimed at providing the bases for long-term comprehensive reconstruction of societies affected by endemic violence. Peacebuilding nowadays includes, amongst other tools, Security Sector Reform (SSR), the demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants (DDR) and holding democratic elections within a full-fledged democratization and Rule of Law process. The UN Peacebuilding Commission, created in 2005, is a reflection of the notion that failed States need a specific, sustained multilateral action. These are issues dealt with in the final Chapter, by Borja Lasheras. To conclude, as we said in the opening remarks, the UN is facing pressing questions of finding its role in a new strategic context, as is that of the XXIst century. Old tools and systems will not suffice, as former UN Secretary General Annan made clear at the end of his mandate. Yet it is also true that the UN is still endowed with the legitimacy of its universal membership and the general recognition that it must be at the center of multilateral action, in partnership with other international actors. There are old threats and new threats on the table which need collective action to make good the promises of international peace and security contained in the Chapter. And there are also new guiding principles for such action to take place in accordance with the times and with the spirit of the Charter. These will not eliminate the realities of a multipolar or, as some say, non-polar world (where not even the strongest States concentrate or control power, as this year´s financial crisis shows); realities which are not per se harmful, but which make an even more solid case for the UN to adapt and exercise leadership in a new world. Multilateralism will thus acquire a new meaning in this globalized world. It is for the interest of all that a XXIst century, reformed UN with this potential for new and concerted action, stays at its center. |
Exemplaires (1)
| Code-barres | Cote | Support | Localisation | Section | Disponibilité |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113147R | 341.23 GAR N | Book | Royal Military Academy | Bibliothèque ERM | Disponible |
