The United Nations is often blamed for its mistakes. Think of the notorious failures, such as the operations in Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda, stemming from the organization's inability to redress a devastating civil war or to prevent and adequately respond to genocides. Mistakes like these, combined with numerous other examples, have contributed to UN-bashing. In some political and journalistic circles, this is a popular pastime. In most other circles, however, the many mistakes and failures of the organization are accepted because it is thought that the organization is still the best available.

Is it possible to transcend the level of thinking about the United Nations as a peace and security organization only and to keep in mind the diversity of tasks included in the original mandate of the organization in order to recognize the need for reform and bring it more in line with contemporary standards of accountability?

Looking Back to the Original UN Mandate

Inspired by the negative experiences of WWII and by US President Roosevelt’s famous 1941 Four Freedoms Speech among other influences, the original purposes of the United Nations included not only such edicts as “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace,” but also “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character” and to be “a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.” In later years, these purposes were updated in light of new challenges, especially with regards to the emergence of newly independent states—former colonized countries—and growing poverty. Concerning the latter, one can refer to the 2000 Millennium Development Goals. A careful look at the United Nations’ mandate reveals that it is about much more than peace and security. As far as its instruments are concerned, the mandate is primarily about cooperation, prevention, diplomatic interference, and the like, and it is only secondarily about enforcement through military means.

The United Nations, NGOs, and the Business Sector

While the United Nations does not require its member states to be democratic, the fall of the Berlin Wall changed its perspective slightly. For instance, the declaration accepted by the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993 clearly endorsed the promotion of democracy throughout the world. That notion was again present in the 2005 Summit Outcome document, although with interesting nuances. It states: “democracy is a universal value,” but it also says that “while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy.” That is no doubt true, and it was also a way out of a problematic debate related to issues such as forcible democratization by Western powers. As such, the September 2005 formulation is a typical UN text: a compromise with which many governmental delegations could agree.

If the reality is that it will not be possible to change all political systems worldwide into those that are democratic in one way or another—even when accepting the broadest definition of democracy—it is important to think about alternatives. One such alternative is to seriously invest in civil society on the national level and, next to that, in the role of civil society in international organizations like the United Nations. Structurally linking the world of the civil society to government-oriented work done within the United Nations would foster democratic legitimization. The late US philosopher John Rawls argued for more democracy by focusing not on the rights of states but on the rights of peoples, because peoples—unlike states—have moral motives and a moral nature, wishing to survive and cooperate. However, a full recognition of the rights of peoples is out of reach for many states.

As long as that is the case, advancing democracy by linking the work of the United Nations to national civil society would be an important achievement, granting legitimacy as citizens accepted the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as co-constituents. The United Nations should not only give a voice to NGOs, but it should also work with them in the field of development cooperation—as is the case right now—and in the restoration of justice after conflicts. In these areas and many others, the capabilities of states are falling short. The NGO-world can bring in additional expertise to make the United Nations a part of the daily realities of the peoples not officially represented in the organization. It would also make the organization more outward-looking in an era in which effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability are the buzzwords of international affairs. As of now, over 3,000 NGOs have consultative status with the United Nations, but it should not be forgotten that this is only a small part of the NGO world. The Union of International Organizations estimates that in 2004 the world had a total of 51,509 NGOs. Further, it should not be forgotten that the NGO world is becoming more mature due to its endowment with new tasks.

Arguing along similar lines, it is very important to open UN doors to the business sector. By now it is generally recognized that companies can play a major role in initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals. Leaving aside the pros and cons of that new emphasis, one can argue that this is another way of linking the United Nations to daily realities, again bringing in forces that can be instrumental in fulfilling tasks that are beyond the capacities of states.

On a more abstract level it is often said in relation to the business sector issue that those who work and trade with one another do not fight. In today’s interdependent and globalizing world, much can be gained by broadening trade cooperation. It might be the best way to avoid further escalation of conflicts. For that reason, it is also unfortunate that the WTO Doha Development Round has not been brought to a good end. The link between economic cooperation and the prevention of conflicts is not new but was recognized in 1945 when, at the moment of shaping the UN Charter, trade and development were viewed as important conditions for achieving stability and international peace and security.