Читать книгу A World Transformed - Danilo Türk - Страница 14

CHAPTER FOUR

The Global and Regional in the Contemporary International System

Can the international system function solely through global institutions, such as the United Nations? The answer cannot be yes because the world is too complex for a single type of international organization. A combination is necessary. The founders of the United Nations who met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington DC in 1944 to draft the Charter of the future global organization understood the problem and devised an approach that is still relevant today.

The question, at the time, was whether an effective global instrument of peace could be hoped for and what could be expected from regional security mechanisms. The experience with the League of Nations was disappointing and a regional approach seemed more realistic, and closer to the needs of “realpolitik”.

The result of those discussions and subsequent negotiations was a compromise. The United Nations Security Council was endowed, in Article 24 of the Charter, with the “primary responsibility” for the maintenance of international peace and security. In addition, according to Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, nothing in the Charter precluded the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that they and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The UN Charter established a hierarchy in favor of the global organization, the United Nations.¹

←29 | 30→

Much time has passed since the formulation of the quoted compromise and much experience has been gained since then.² The Charter of the United Nations has generally stood the test of time.

The special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in maintaining international peace and security have been reaffirmed time and again – both in situations dealt with by the UN as well as those addressed by regional organizations.

On the other hand, the notion that the UN Security Council holds primary and not exclusive responsibility for maintaining international peace and security has become better understood. With the evolution of regional security systems and their practice, a subtle rebalancing has started to take place. The emphasis on the role of regional arrangements has become stronger, and thus the idea of partnerships between the UN and regional organizations became more important. The element of hierarchy, on the other hand, has become weaker.

In practically all the recent situations involving threats to international peace and security in Africa, the UN has coordinated its activities closely with the African Union and with several sub-regional organizations. From the wars between Ethiopia and Eritrea and in the DRC to situations in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Darfur and, most recently the Central African Republic and South Sudan, different types of cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union as well as with ECOWAS (Economic Community on Western African States), SADDC (Southern African Development Coordination Conference) and IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) have been a vital ingredient in the search for solutions. In addition, the development of legal norms and institutions within the African Union has added to its role and responsibility in dealing with challenges to peace and security in Africa.

New methods and tools of work are being introduced for cooperation between the UN and regional organizations. They include meetings of members of the UN Security Council and the European Union’s Political Security Committee. This has helped to develop the necessary European support for UN peace operations in Africa. Moreover, EU involvement was necessary to complement the efforts already taking place within the cooperation between the UN and the African Union.

In the Middle East, the cooperation of the UN and the Arab League has a long history and has been given a particularly important role in the (admittedly unsuccessful) efforts to stop the war in Syria. With that war coming to an end now, cooperation between the UN and the Arab League will gain additional relevance.

In the Americas, the UN has worked closely with the OAS as well as with the Rio Group, the CARICOM (Caribbean Community) and other organizations to ←30 | 31→address a variety of situations in the Andean region, Central America and Haiti, the latter being probably one of the most intractable situations of the past decades.

In Southeast Asia, the UN has learned much from the experience of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and the much appreciated “ASEAN way” in dealing with the situation in Myanmar, which has been on the agenda of the General Assembly for more than two decades, as well as a matter of diplomacy of the Secretary-General. Subsequently it has been placed on the agenda of the Security Council and cooperation with ASEAN continues to be important.³

In the northern hemisphere, the UN and the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) have developed a set of useful cooperation models and division of labor. This cooperation has been given the most practical expression in the Balkans and the Caucasus, especially in the cooperation between the respective field presences of both organizations. At the same time, in such broad areas of work as conflict prevention and mediation, electoral assistance, strengthening democratic institutions and promoting human rights, both organizations have learned from each other’s experience.

These are only a few examples as well as some of the most visible cases. It is important to understand that the global system of collective security today functions as a system of both the United Nations and regional organizations. Both segments of collective security are critical. It is never certain which one will take the lead. Only through adequate cooperation and synergy between the UN and relevant regional organizations can the desired results be produced which are consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

This results-oriented cooperation among different segments of the global system of collective security should be seen in a mutually reinforcing and nonhierarchical relationship. After all, what matters is the strengthening of international peace and security and effective crisis resolution when crises erupt. Results-oriented cooperation between the UN and regional organizations is needed to embed the spirit of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter.

The practical experience accumulated in the decades of UN work is important for the effective work of the regional organizations. The unique legitimacy of the UN, the only global and fully inclusive organization with a mandate in the field of maintaining international peace and security, represents an important asset in crisis management and conflict resolution.

The OSCE, on the other hand, brings an additional value to the picture. The idea of comprehensive security, embodied already in the UN Charter itself, was developed further in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and has been given specific expressions in several OSCE activities since then.

←31 | 32→

Seen in a historical perspective it is impressive – almost paradoxical – that the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, a document which was, at its time, the epitome of subtle diplomacy and compromise, helped to produce the most far-reaching transformation. Today Europe is a much better place than it was before 1975 and much of this improvement is due to the transformative effects of the Helsinki Final Act and its follow-up. These are achievements of historic proportions. Moreover, this historic success created a genuine opportunity for the coexistence, cooperation and partnership of Euro-Atlantic and Euro-Asian regional cooperation mechanisms.

At the same time, it should be understood that security organizations have to be able to effectively address political crises as they arise as well as help resolve ongoing violent conflicts. Every effort needs to be made to resolve the crisis in Ukraine. The OSCE is currently the lead international organization engaged in these efforts and a variety of its organs and mechanisms are already taking part. The organization is addressing the crisis on a very broad front and is using all the instruments and mechanisms from its tool box to help find solutions.

In a situation of this gravity and importance, it is necessary to take advantage of all lessons learned from the past. Which aspects of the UN experience can be helpful in this broad effort? There are three lessons which can be of assistance.

First: act early. The earlier action is taken, the more likely it is that it will eventually be effective. Crisis situations tend to become more difficult with every day that passes. OSCE engagement in Ukraine started as soon as the consensus allowed it to and the whole range of instruments that the organization has to offer is being utilized.

Second: ensure inclusiveness. The more inclusive the process of searching for solutions is, the more likely it will conclude with an agreement. The crisis in Ukraine has shown, once again, the quick growth of polarization within a society in times of crisis. When people don’t feel secure and start losing hope in a better future, they turn to other loyalties, and emotions start running high. The only effective remedy in such dangerous circumstances is dialogue, organized in an inclusive manner, which leaves no ethnic, religious or other relevant group outside. Such a dialogue should also address the difficult issues of the organization of state power, its decentralization and power sharing. It is also important to ensure adequate involvement of women in the process; it is never too late to secure their participation.

Third: territorial integrity requires effort. As we have seen in the post-cold war era in Eastern Europe and as we continue to see in other parts of the world, the territorial integrity of states is no longer the obvious basis for conflict resolution. In some situations in the recent past, circumstances have degenerated to a point at which the dissolution of states, multiethnic, multi-religious or otherwise ←32 | 33→complex states, presented itself as a necessary part of the solution. In order to avoid such unwelcome scenarios, question of the inclusion of all political actors, and, as the case may be, geographically-defined autonomy and federal arrangements need to be addressed sufficiently early, with a sense of realism and political creativity. Although decentralization can be perceived as a step towards ultimate partition, it could, in fact, be necessary to keep a country together.

Admittedly this is a sensitive matter. However, real political issues must be addressed and real solutions must be preferred to circumvention and delays. Specific experiences of diplomacy, both good and bad, leading to the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the 2001 Ohrid Framework Agreement in Macedonia, are worth keeping in mind.

The crisis in Ukraine is a fundamental challenge to the international system. The importance of a stable solution cannot be overemphasized. Ukraine must not become a geopolitical battlefield. It has the potential to play the independent and globally important role as a bridge of cooperation. And in order to harness this potential, Ukraine should develop an inclusive constitutional arrangement and the appropriate international status. All efforts should be motivated by this objective. Let us not forget even during the hard times in the Cold War era, it was possible to build bridges. It should not be an impossible task today.

In matters of maintaining international peace and security, there is no substitute for cooperation among the permanent members of the UN Security Council. They continue to bear a special responsibility for the functioning of the international system as a whole. The growing number of global security problems today calls for a renewed effort. A global security compact among the permanent members of the UN Security Council is needed. Admittedly, such a compact was necessary but could not materialize in the immediate aftermath of the Cold War. However, the intervening years have brought additional experience and wisdom. This could help in developing a consensus regarding the main challenges to international peace and security, and would help international institutions, above all the United Nations and the OSCE, to play an effective role in an increasingly multipolar world.

The ideas which guided the conference at Dumbarton Oaks seventy years ago continue to be inspiring and should be brought forth in the modern context. Cooperation between the UN and regional organizations and, above all, learning from each other is one of the critically important requirements for the successful functioning of the international system in the twenty-first century.

(Keynote Address on the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, OSCE Security Day, Vienna, 27 May 2014)

←33 | 34→←34 | 35→

Notes

1. 1 For the history of these provisions see S. Schlesinger, Act of Creation, Westview 2003, pp 175–193.

2. 2 For some features of the evolution of regionalism see Peter J. Katzenstein, A World of Regions, Cornell University Press, 2005.

3. 3 For some of the recent developments of regional organization in Asia, see William T. Tow, Ramesh Thakur and In-Taek Hyun, Asia’s Emerging Regional Order: Reconciling Tradition and Human Security, United Nations University Press, 2000.