Panel discussion: can the United Nations survive?
2003 Report (Continued)
The next question asked the panelists to consider whether, in going back to the Security Council for support in rebuilding Iraq, the United States demonstrated that it had "learned its lesson"? Glennon replied that the U.S.'s return to the UN doesn't reflect any categorical imperative (if faced with the same situation again, we would still go to war without UN approval). In other words, the U.S. may want the UN to help fund its projects, but will continue acting preemptively to force regime change.
The final question addressed whether global civil society can play a more important role in the UN of the future. Mortimer's response was that civil society is most effective within the nation-state, yet some campaigns (i.e. on land mines, international trade, etc.) have recognized the effects that civil society can achieve. There is currently a panel, led by former Brazilian President Cardozo, that is coming up with recommendations on precisely how civil society can be involved in the UN. Ambassador Schori added that there is interest in possibly converting the Trusteeship Council into an organ through which civil society could express its concerns. Ambassador Mahbubani put in that while outside opinion does "filter in," the UN community largely resists giving civil society more input since the only well-organized and well-funded civilian groups are in the Western world. Western representatives to the UN, too, resist these NGO's participation since their political goals often do not match the government's.
The discussion ended and the Moderator thanked the panelists and the audience for their contributions.
(Report by Shara Kay)
Back to the top.Recent Event ...
Iran and the Middle East: How to Shape a Security Regime Acceptable to All Regional Actors
Panel discussion at New York University on Wednesday, March. 26, 2008 6:30—8:30 pm
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
