Since 1945 few if any countries have matched Norway's
faith and large investments in - not to mention general enthusiasm for -
the world organisation, the UN. Whatever political hue Norwegian
governments have had, the UN has always been a vital instrument of their
foreign policy. After the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Trygve Lie
became the UN's first secretary-general in 1945, historains have said that
Norwegian foreign policy was "as pro-American as it dared, as
pro-Soviet as it had to be, and as pro-UN as it possibly could be."
By Jan Egeland
In close cooperation with the other Nordic countries,
Norway has used the organisation to advance our values and interests
internationally. Concurrently, in the UN the Nordic countries have been
able to play a role which is disproportionate to our share of the global
population. Illustrating this, the Nordic countries have provided two of
the organisation's seven secretary-generals and a number who have filled
other key positions. A notable example is Norway's former prime minister,
Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was elected to lead the World Health
Organisation (WHO) in May 1998.
Throughout the history of the UN, the Nordic countries
have been key contributors to the organisation's peace-keeping and
development assistance activities, and have been instrumental in
furthering human rights issues. Although three of the Nordic countries are
EU members, the Nordic political leaders have resolved to maintain their
regional profile in the UN.
UN criticism
Criticism of the UN is often heard in foreign policy
debates. It is claimed that the world organisation is ineffective - a
resolution mill which too seldomly contributes to practical solutions to
the global community's problems. Some feel, with this in mind, that Norway
has given too much emphasis to the UN in its foreign policy making, at the
cost of the country's regional relations and national security needs.
I would refute such arguments. Work in the UN reflects a
complicated and time-consuming tug-of-war between 180 member nations who
represent an array of views toward international problems and who often
have conflicting interests. In 1998, with a new Gulf crisis and an
outbreak of new nuclear weapons tests, the UN has again shown that it is
our only global organisation which can play a central role in the struggle
for peace and enhanced international justice. The Norwegian and Nordic
commitment is thus - now as before - well worth the investment.
A world of contrasts
We need a strong UN, particularly at a time with
antagonistic tendencies. This is a "post-Cold War period"
highlighted by enormous contrasts. Reduced to a single sentence, it is a
time where the menace has diminished while insecurity has grown. We are
now no longer threatened by a nuclear third World War between two
superpowers. But we are just as vulnerable as before. We can foresee
environmental catastrophes, mass human migrations, civil wars and new
cases of ethnic cleansing. Not just in Africa, Asia and Latin America, but
for the first time in a generation we have experienced war in our own part
of the world - Europe.
The contrasts and paradoxes are numerous:
*The world is gaining - in part thanks to the UN's
de-colonisation and human rights efforts - a growing number of
democracies. But there is also an increase in weak states that could
nurture non-democratic rulers.
* International cooperation within and exclusive of the UN
is on the rise, but so is aggressive nationalism.
* Partly ascribable to the mediation of the UN, there are
fewer international conflicts, but there are more civil and tribal wars.
* There are - partly owing to the UNHCR - fewer
international refugees, but simultaneously there are more internal
refugees, illegal immigrants and homeless.
* There is - attributable to the UNDP and UNESCO - a larger
population that is literate and has secure social welfare conditions. At
the same time, there have never been so many hundreds of millions of
illiterates and extremely destitute persons as there are in the world
today.
* Never before - thanks partly to the ILO - have so many
laid claim to ordered working and retirement conditions. Concurrently,
international capital has never enjoyed such freedom in free trade areas
and tax havens in conflict with social justice and the interests of
labour.
In a time like this it is more vital than ever to prevent
catastrophes, conflicts and poverty - thus curtailing insecurity. For
Norway, working for the country's ideals through the UN constitutes sound
and practical politics. It also serves our own national security
interests.
Peace and security
The UN idea sprang out of the Second World War's alliance
in the struggle against expansive and aggressive dictatorships. The goal
was to avert a Third World War and promote regional solutions to
conflicts. Simultaneously, the UN worked for reconstruction, so that
social and economic progress could replace the hunger and chaos of war.
Today we can ascertain that no total war between major
powers has broken out. From Korea in the 1950s to Kuwait in the 1990s, the
UN has helped to thwart or reverse aggression. UN troops have helped
provide stability in the Middle East and on Cyprus for decades. In
Cambodia in 1993 the UN initiated its most complex operation for
reconstruction - in a country that had experienced 13 years of war. In the
1990s in Mozambique the UN assisted in the demobilisation of 100,000
troops, the staging of a democratic election and the establishment of a
united defence.
The UN has also contributed to peace in Namibia, El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Angola. In Bosnia the organisation has made a
huge humanitarian effort. And by means of personal diplomacy in Iraq,
Secretary General Kofi Annan averted a new Gulf War in 1998. This is
something that the United States Congress should be grateful for, and show
it by appropriating the money which the USA owes the UN.
When the problems of creating peace in Kosovo, Somalia and
Rwanda are cited as examples of UN failures, critics are in part divulging
inflated expectations stemming from the success won in the Gulf War. The
UN really has an impressive merit list of its efforts for peace and
stability. Its activities were undeniably hampered by the ideological
conflicts of the Cold War, but in the past seven years activities have
rocketed. While the League of Nations only lasted two decades, the UN
thrives after more than fifty years as the only global instrument in
efforts for resolving international conflicts.
The Security Council
Norway will thus assist in the further development of the
UN as an organ for collective security. We support the extension and
reform of the Security Council to reflect the fact that a majority of
nations are in the Third World, and we want it to include the big powers
Germany and Japan. Furthermore, we think it important that a Nordic nation
is represented in the Security Council, as often as possible, to ensure a
steady international promotion of Nordic viewpoints for peace and
security. In the UN we justify a frequent Nordic participation with our
countries' extraordinary contributions to peace operations, humanitarian
efforts and development assistance. Norway has served in the Council for
three two-year periods and is a candidate for the period 2001-2002. Sweden
is currently working excellently as a Nordic member in the Security
Council.
Is it sufficient to mention as an argument for Norwegian
membership in the Security Council that we annually contribute upwards of
150 USD per capita to the UN, or 10-20 times more than the average for
citizens of other wealthy nations? No, our visions regarding a more
effective and democratic UN will represent the best argument in Norway's
election campaign. In addition we can point out that we take part in our
share of the field work: through our contribution of several thousand
assistance and democracy workers in UN operations run by NOREPS and NORDEM
we have also helped make the organisation more effective prior to, and
during, severe crises. From the first operation in the Sinai in 1956 to
the present, Norway has contributed over 50,000 women and men to the UN's
peace-keeping operations - the equivalent of more than one per cent of our
population.
In addition we have given special care to the education
and training of peace-keeping personnel, and to the establishment of UN
guidelines in this area. We have assisted in setting up a system of
permanent forces in member countries earmarked for UN duty, and an
initiative to bolster the UN's command and control system.
Only through a critical discussion about the UN's
organisation, mandates, financing, functions can we help the world
organisation continue to play a central part in the complicated and
conflict-prone world of the future. By actively contributing to and
improving the reform process which the competent Secretary-General Koffi
Annan has initiated, Norway, the Nordic countries and other UN supporters
can ensure that the only global peace, security, development and human
rights organisation continues to effectively promote our ideals and
interests in the next millennium.
The author of this article, Jan Egeland, has served as
state secretary (1992-97) and personal advisor (1990-92) in the Norwegian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
After the change in government in October 1997, he has
worked as a special advisor to the Norwegian Red Cross and the Peace
Research Institute in Oslo.
He has also been engaged in reconciliation efforts for Cyprus (in collaboration with the US peace negotiator Richard Holbrooke) and in Colombia (through the Inter-American Development Bank.)
In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mr Egeland has,
among other things, been responsible for Norway's UN policies,
humanitarian contributions, and for Norwegian peace arbitration for the
Middle East (the Oslo Accords) as well as for Central America.
Produced by Nytt fra Norge for the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. The author is responsible for the contents of the
article. Reproduction permitted. Printed in July 1998.
|
