The World is Getting Messier: Time to Rethink a New Global Order

We reproduce here, the Preamble of the United Nations Organizations, as set in 1945 and invite you to juxtapose these lofty ideals to happenings on the global scene today

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

The preambulatory phrase “In Larger Freedom” became the title of a UN reform proposal by the seventh Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, but which was dead at birth as it was rejected outright.

In which ways are we today saving ‘succeeding generations from the scourge of war’ when we sponsor war (Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere)? How are we reaffirming ‘faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person’, when we delight in causing pain and death to innocent civilians in areas mentioned above and in others, whose economies we destroy with delight (Venezuela, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, etc) through war and sanctions? Have we established ‘conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained’ as we wantonly despise international law through unilateralism and as we kill multilateralism by withdrawing from international organizations and/or regimes (like the International Criminal Court –ICC-, the Kyoto and Paris Climate Protocols, UNESCO, and the INF Treaty)? In which ways are we promoting ‘social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom’? Is it through the numerous economic sanctions against perceived enemy governments and/or states and the inception of trade wars?

In San Francisco, we set ourselves these aims, none of which is being achieved now. But we also set ourselves some means or ends for achieving the aims. In which ways are we trying to ‘practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours’? Is it through the unbridled geopolitics that are ongoing? One of the ends we promised ourselves was to ‘to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security’. Is this unfolding as we support rival forces in the wars in Syria, Yemen etc? What have we made ‘to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest’? Was it a common interest in Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, and Syria since 2011? How far are we in our resolve ‘to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples’, when we constantly want to destroy others’ economies and bring their governments down? (Check Venezuela, China, Palestine, Russia, North Korea, Syria, etc, all of whom have sanctions hanging on their necks).

True the global post-War (1945) architecture seems incapable of withstanding the shocks of contemporary realities. While the said architecture was extremely state-centric and the Cold War exacerbated its weaknesses, there was enough hope and goodwill after the end of the Cold War. It was the misdiagnosis that followed the demise of the Cold War that has brought more chaos and made the world messier than the pre-1945 era. The big powers, especially the United States of America, seem to be pursuing a zero-sum transactional approach to international politics. The post-Cold War triumphalist behaviour of the US and the West has proven to be a mirage. It has rather engendered resurgence in Russia, Chinese assertiveness, and rogue behaviour from countries like Turkey, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. The so-called American Exceptionalism is serving to undermine its ability to serve as both a player and referee in global politics. The US, therefore, has become as much a symptom of the fraying international order as an agent exacerbating it. As other countries try to compete (China, especially) the trend will be one of a decline in America’s relative power and influence, and a more competitive landscape for regional and global leadership. This seems to be the order already and explains the messy nature of global political economy today.

It is about time the world sat up. Time to rethink a New World Order. Let us look at Art. 108 and 109 (Chapter XIII) of the UN Charter and do something before we plunge the world into another catastrophe.

CHAPTER XVIII: AMENDMENTS

 Article 108

Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Article 109

1. A General Conference of the Members of the United Nations for the purpose of reviewing the present Charter may be held at a date and place to be fixed by a two-thirds vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any nine members of the Security Council. Each Member of the United Nations shall have one vote in the conference.
2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.
3. If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the General Assembly following the coming into force of the present Charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the General Assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the General Assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the Security Council.
4. By V. Antwi-Danso (PhD)