Reforms in the functioning of the UN are needed in order to try to create a fairer world in which the threat of international terrorism can start to disappear.
The terrible attack on the 11th September, in which thousands of civilians died, has forced US citizens to face up to the fact that their territory is also vulnerable to an attack from external powers, something that must have seemed unimaginable since the last such attack was over a century ago.
Possibly due to this belief in their immunity, US international policy (particularly since the fall of the Soviet Union), has manifested an arrogance towards their allies, and a tendency to make enemies. It has proved itself to be interested only in increasing its own power, even stretching the limits of international law in order to defend its own interests. Often the interests of the US become confused with the interests of certain political leaders having a popularity crisis, or with those of the most important businessmen.
The terrorist attack of the 11th September is a disproportionate consequence of this foreign policy, and no amount of military or police intelligence (even when the country is in a constant state of emergency powers) can guarantee that something similar will not happen in the future.
Only those who have absorbed hate, have lost all hope, and have little to lose are prepared to die in the murder of others. Extreme circumstances produce extremists, and a huge part of the world’s population lives in misery on the edge of the law, and with their basic human rights disrespected. In many cases, western governments are directly responsible for this.
The West, with the US at its head, has been supporting the so-called ‘moderate’ regimes in the Arab world; regimes that usually consist of dictatorships that are favourable towards the interests of our governments, and our businesses, and that deny their people the most basic attentions such as education or sanitary assistance. When, in these countries, people are ill or in need, they know that they cannot expect assistance from the State, but that in the mosque they will find education for their kids and some help for them to escape from their situation of need. When in these countries the people want the government to change they are met with the ferocious repression of an army trained, armed and supported by the West.
Muslims feel humiliated, and rightly so, by the prepotency with which we intervene in their matters, applying our own criteria in order to assess their rights and needs, and those of our allies. It is worth asking whether the attack of the 11th September would have happened if, at any time during the last 30 years the US had forced Israel to come to a fair and reasonable agreement with the Palestinians. I think that the answer is no.
Putting an end to international terrorism is a process that requires, together with police collaboration, configuring international society in such a way that human rights violations are punished, that injustices receive compensation, and an end is brought to the abandonment and helplessness that brings multitudes of people to a state of such desperation that they are prepared to die through the murder of others.
This statement might seem utopian, but it is a project that is possible, and indeed now is the best moment to try to carry it out, since realizing it requires public opinion in the US to understand and assume the need to transfer more power, efficiency and independence to international institutions, so that they do not only function according to the needs of the strongest powers, since this only leads to an increase in inequality, hate and violence- the consequences of which, as we have seen, can be terrible for everyone.
The UN should be reconfigured so that it is more democratic, more agile, with more power and executive strength. And it should be done in such a way that its functioning does not become so conditioned by the veto that the members of the Security Council wield, frequently used for the benefit of the strongest powers, and in detriment to human rights.
The functioning of UN should be distinct from the political interests of the different states, and should be based on the application of objective criteria in defence of human rights. In order for this to happen, we should create a council that is integrated by authorities of indisputable international prestige, that in some cases could adopt provisional executive decisions, and whose judgments over others should necessarily be the subject of debate by the General Assembly.
The only authority unanimously recognized by almost everyone is that which we confer upon winners of Nobel Peace prizes. The Nobel Institution has spent 100 years thoughtfully selecting inhabitants from throughout the world who have distinguished themselves for outstanding work and intellects, for being able to interpret reality from an advanced, and original perspective and for being able to offer the most effective solutions to the most complex problems. It seems to me that the Nobel prize winners represent one of the most important heritages of humanity.
Therefore, the UN council that I referred to earlier could consist exclusively of Nobel prize winners. Each winner would have the right to belong to this committee and to participate in the meetings unless the council was dissolved with the agreement of 51% of the UN.
This Council would be competent in four different areas of work: crisis prevention, humanitarian aid, promoting the intervention of peace forces when necessary, arbitrating in conflicts between nations, and initiating trials for crimes against humanity.
Crisis prevention, for example, is a complex and extremely important activity, to which the Nobel winners would have to dedicate all their brilliance in order to decide which are the most important channels that international society has to promote peace and save the enormous loss that each new war entails. It is as much a question of planning a general policy that considers how to improve education, equality of opportunities, sanitation and economic development in the Third World, as a question of avoiding concrete conflicts. In order to cover the costs of this activity, the Tobin tax could bring the UN an income of between 27 and 45 billion pesetas annually.
The Council would allow the UN to become more dynamic, compelling states to consider essential matters that, at the moment aren’t even talked about in the General Assembly of the UN. The moral authority of its members, on the other hand, would allow a number of initiatives to be carried out, that otherwise would be underestimated or vetoed according to narrow strategic interests. Lastly, the intellectual capacity and acute perception of the members of the Council would enable them to find more thoughtful and successful solutions to the serious problems that the international community is suffering.
An initiative like this would contribute to the creation of a more just and better world, where human rights are respected and hopelessness could be addressed.
In current circumstances it makes sense to expect an idea like this to gain the support of the American people. If Europe launched it with sufficient force, Bush would have no alternative but to listen carefully.
Gregorio Planchuelo is President of the Citizen Defense Association
