Letter To the Editor
| Author | Douglas Williams |
| Published date | 01 May 1989 |
| Date | 01 May 1989 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/004711788900900520 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
473
LETTER
TO
THE
EDITOR
~
3
February
1989
Dear
Madam,
Mr
Antonio
Donini
accurately
describes
his
excellent
article
in
your
Novem-
ber
1988
issue
on
the
Processes
of
Change
in
the
United
Nations
as
‘a journey
through
the
labyrinths
of
UN
reform
attempts’.
As
such
it
deserves
the
atten-
tion
of
everybody
seriously
interested
in
the
role
of
the
United
Nations
and
its
‘system’
in
present-day
international
relations.
One
of
the
troubles
now,
how-
ever,
is
that
there
are
few
such
people
other
than
those
directly
engaged
in
working
in
some
part
of
the
system
or
in
studying
its
intricacies
at
universities
(probably
as
a
mental
stimulus
on
a
par
with
deciphering
Etruscan).
Mr
Donini
himself
puts
his
finger
on
it
when
he
writes:
’All
the
proposals/attempts
reviewed
here
have
a
slightly
incestuous
flavour.
Practically
all
are
by-products
of
the
UN
collective
unconscious
in
the
sense
that
their
authors ...
all
come
from
within
or
around
the
UN
system ...
All
the
principal
authors
have
been
either
staff
members,
officials
or
experts
of
the
UN’.
He
correctly
states
that
’in
a
universal
membership
organisation’
the
two
pre-conditions
for
reform
are
(a)
support
from
a
number
of
sufficiently
representative
member
states,
and
(b)
mustering
the
support
of
outside
public
opinion.
In
fact
the
two
elements
are
interdependent.
Despite
the
number
of
institu-
tional
and
administrative
reforms
from
1945
to
today
which
Mr
Donini
cata-
logues,
no
substantial
change
has
been
achieved
other
than
an
increase
in
complexity,
for
the
simple
reason
that
the
shortcomings
of
the
present
system
suit
too
many
of
the
active
participants
in
it -
both
in
the
sovereign
govern-
ments
and
in
the
international
bureaucracies.
Experience
shows
this
situation
will
not
change
without
the
mustering
of
public
opinion
not
only
on
a
large
scale
but
also
in
the
right
places.
Unfortunately
the
’right
places’
are
probably
not
the
traditional
ones
where
’liberal’
opinion
gathers
to
favour
automatically
’international’
action
in
preference
to
the
exercise
of’national
sovereignty’.
A
sustained
campaign
is
needed
to
convince
Ministers -
and
those
politicians
who
may
become
Ministers -
and
informed
sections
of
public
opinion
that
there
are
universal
problems
which
only
a
universal
organisation
or
system
of
organisations
can
deal
with.
Once
that
has
been
done,
the
degree
to
which
solutions
require
limitations
on
sovereignty
or
an
increase
in
the
provisions
of
international
law
or
changes
in
the
size
and
powers
of
international
secretariats
to
deal
with
them
should
be
capable
of
rational
discussion.
There
are
institu-
tions
all over
the
world
which
are
capable
of
organising
it -
including
your
own.
Of
the
issues,
however,
which
Mr
Donini
considers
require
’priority
atten-
tion’
one,
though
highly
fashionable,
is
in
my
view,
misconceived.
This
is
that
’the
UN
Charter
is
an
expression
of
Western
values’
and
that
because
these
are
coming
under
increasing
challenge
it
is
’not
reasonable
to
expect
that
the
Charter
can
be
fully
internalized
by
all
the
membership’.
On
the
contrary
the
evidence
indicates
that
though
the
Charter
may
have
been
devised
mainly
in
the
West,
most
of
its
values
are
universal -
a
fact
shown
by
the
direction
in
which
most
of
the
world
moves
when
given
a
chance
to
vote
with
its
feet.
Mr
Donini’s
argument
can
do
great
harm
to
international
co-operation
by
creating
the
impression
that
there
are
no
universal
values,
or
that,
if
there
are,
they
can
To continue reading
Request your trial