UN reform at last

FRESH attempts at overhauling the United Nations express strong desire for much needed movement in the right direction, but would need following claims with equally necessary compromises to avoid repeats of previous half-hearted attempts. Regional and international differences would no doubt figure in an exercise comprising intense give and take among such a diverse group, but allowing them to hold back progress prohibits indispensable evolution, defeating one of the core purposes of an organisation meant to maintain delicate balance among states in a constantly changing international environment. Need for change has been felt for decades now, starting from the 70s as the international order began to mature from the post-WWII makeup. For the international body to run on a power construct still depicting the world that emerged from the ruins of the Great War is simply not suited in today’s day and age, when the global environment has changed almost beyond recognition. The most notable change has not been the dual superpower equation giving way to one hyper-power, but the mushrooming of emerging economies leveraging increased integration to boast furious growth rates, redefining the international politico-economic order. It is heartening to note that bickering parties like the Group of Four, The African Union, and other alliances demanding their kind of UN change that derailed reforms in ’05 have promised more seriousness this time.
Still, much of their expressed will will be tested once the process moves beyond speeches and proposals, and it is difficult to agree with General Assembly President Srgjan Kerim that some sort of text can be voted on by the end of the present Assembly session in September. Much more significant than mode of Security Council expansion or method of choice for permanent members is going to be the veto-argument if the reforms are to command any form of meaningful approval. The misuse of the veto power has made for the ugliest blot in the organisation’s profile. Instances of the use of UN veto translating into war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity are too numerous to pen down. Indeed, if the UN is finally to have its honour restored, after it was taken for a ride recently as the sole superpower went about its expansionist agenda, a check and balance mechanism must accompany veto privileges. There should be no two opinions that the world needs a UN, and a strong one, contrary to some claims following the organisation’s limp position preceding the ongoing Iraq war. To function effectively, it will bank on member states exhibiting political prudence to maintain equilibrium, especially in today’s troubled international environment. However, if most members cannot agree on the way forward, optimism regarding their effective functioning once the reforms are rolled will remain elusive.




Moving toward reunion

SUBSTANTIVE talks on the reunion of the Turkish and Greek parts of Cyprus will restart in June, after officials from both sides have prepared the ground with a concentrated series of talks. The process will be overseen by the United Nations. All of a sudden, it looks as if a once-intractable intercommunal division is finally approaching an end. It is very far from a done deal but most of the signs are promising. For a start, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mehmet Ali Talat, is not cast in the mold of his predecessor Rauf Denktash, who clung to the idea of a separate Turkish state in Cyprus, even when the mainland Turks had come to see it as both a costly and diplomatic millstone around Ankara’s neck. The irony was that, in 2004, when Denktash was finally forced to allow a referendum which voted in favor of reunification, Greek Cypriots, knowing that their part of the island was on track for EU membership, rejected the idea. The Greek Cypriots, however, last month voted overwhelmingly for the communist presidential candidate, Demetris Christofias, a major plank of whose campaign was the restart of the reunification talks. It also clearly helps that Christofias and Talat are reportedly old friends though this relationship may not count for as much as some hope. Both the then Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopolos and Rauf Denktash had been friends before the Turkish invasion in 1974. Yet their relationship did not facilitate a successful outcome to the 2004 reunification talks.
The detailed negotiations that are now beginning will be difficult. Not the least of the issues to be resolved will be the restitution and/ or compensation for property lost by each community in the other’s territory. An added complication is that many Turkish Cypriots left the island in the years after the invasion, either to mainland Turkey or the UK. Successive governments in Ankara sponsored the emigration of Anatolian farmers to work abandoned land in the north of the island. The position of these people could become invidious if a reciprocal restitution of lost property is agreed. Likewise, on both sides of the divide, in the last 34 years, there has often been considerable commercial development on land whose original owners have fled. How will the added value of such investments be handled? In Denktash’s day, such details were sufficient to wreck negotiations. Now, however, the minutiae of a settlement appear secondary to a growing political will that a reunion deal must be done. In such a climate, the cost to individuals may be outweighed by the greater opportunities that will clearly present themselves to a reunited Cyprus. The plan to remove the frontier barricades across the Ledra Street, once an important Nicosia artery, is both symbolic and practical. Nonetheless, it should not be forgotten that there is no official cross-border trade between the two communities. Perhaps an early next step would be the start of commercial relations, perhaps governed by external arbitration, overseen by the UN.

—Arab News