Reports 1995-1998 Edited by Dwain C. Epps

Memorandum and Recommendations on the occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations

Adopted by the Central Committee, Geneva, 14-22 September 1995.

...the noble ideals embodied in the Charter and the enthusiasm and excitement which accompanied its adoption. We also recall that the tragedy of World War II...served as the catalyst for the creation of this institution. It was an expression of commitment by the founding nations to exercise their political will and pool all their collective wisdom and resources for the maintenance of peace and international security.

Unfortunately, forty years later, the world is witnessing a crisis of confidence in international institutions, a growing breakdown in multilateralism and a gradual erosion in the authority of the UN. This threatens to sweep away the foundations of world peace and a stable international order...

...The disturbing trends which are ripping apart the fragile but essential fabric of international cooperation pose tremendous challenges to the ecumenical community as it seeks to witness as God’s faithful agent for the healing of the broken relationships between the community of nations.

Four years later, in 1989, the Berlin Wall collapsed, signaling the end of Communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe. The end of the Cold War confrontation, which had immobilized the UN for decades, opened the way for the realization of the vision incorporated in the UN Charter of a just, peaceful world order. The permanent members of the Security Council began to put their shoulders to the same wheel and to use the instruments made available to the Council in the Charter but never before used because of the sharp confrontation of ideologies and the repeated use of the power of veto. In rapid succession, a series of nagging, terribly destructive conflicts were resolved in Afghanistan, Cambodia, Angola, Namibia, El Salvador. The apartheid regime in South Africa also gave way under concerted international pressure, and tensions were reduced throughout North East and South East Asia.

But the cooperative approach of the major powers to conflict resolution was short lived. The proclamation of yet another “New World Order” did not lead to a rejuvenation of the United Nations, but rather to a period of system-wide confusion which many commentators have referred to as the “New World Disorder.”

A number of interrelated factors contributed to this state of affairs.

One was the heavy-handed behavior of some members of the Security Council. In 1990, asserting its role as the “world’s only remaining super-power,” the United States of America pressed upon the Security Council its plan for military action to counter Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, short-cutting the UN’s effort to obtain a withdrawal through the strict application of international sanctions against the offending power.

In its statement on the Gulf War, the VII Assembly (Canberra 1991) pointed to the wider implications of that move:

The question of how major international decisions are made has become one of pressing urgency in the world today. The lessons learned from the way this first major world crisis in the post-Cold War era has been handled by the international community demand a critical examination of the emerging new world order. No one government or group of governments should either take or be allowed to take primary responsibility for the resolution of major conflicts beyond their own borders.

A second was the use of UN peace-keeping forces as a panacea for conflict. The Secretary-General’s promising “Agenda for Peace” became bogged down in a series of ill-conceived deployments of UN forces in places like Somalia. Often lacking clarity of purpose, UN peace-keeping operations proliferated. As often as not, they further complicated conflicts rather than to bring them closer to resolution. The “Blue Helmets” were more and more regarded as partisan forces, and not the neutral peace-keepers they were intended to be. Peace-keeping and peace-enforcement became confused. In addition, the skyrocketing costs associated with these initiatives placed the whole organization at financial risk.

Third, the ideology of the unrestricted “free market” was pressed upon the component parts of the world body as a litmus test for survival in the process of reorganization. The UN’s development agenda floundered as more and more responsibility for global economic and trade reform was ceded to the Bretton Woods institutions: the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Fourth, a simplistic approach to democratization around the world also overtook the organization. To hold elections became the sine qua non for economic and political recognition, and was equated with popular democratic rule in many places, ignoring the historical and cultural context of peoples, and leaving untouched the political and economic root causes of injustice, division and conflict.

Fifth, the capacity of the UN to respond to complex emergencies has been severely impaired. Individual UN agencies continue to do heroic work in the field to protect refugees, to meet the human needs of masses of persons displaced by conflict and natural disaster, to protect children, to cope with threats of epidemics, and to feed and house threatened populations. The emergence of many new civil and international conflicts, often exacerbated by ethnic or national tensions, has severely strained the capacity of the Organization to coordinate and oversee emergency operations. The creation of a new Department of Humanitarian Affairs has helped, but the extraordinary circumstances of crises like the one in Rwanda have served to underscore the need for a thorough review of emergency response.

The crux of the problem remains, in the view of many experts, the increasing concentration of power in the Security Council, and in particular in the hands of its five permanent members. Decisions were more often reached behind closed doors, stifling debate, overwhelming the General Assembly and its subsidiary organs, and increasingly alienating the vast majority of nations from the full exercise of their responsibility for international decision-making. As a consequence, the agenda, functioning and internal coordination of the United Nations system has become increasingly confused and incoherent.

Pressure is on again for a reform of UN structures, beginning with the composition, procedures and role of the Security Council. Once again, however, the proposals for change tend to respond more to the interests of a minority of powerful industrialized nations than to the ever more pressing needs of the poorest of the world’s nations.

Thus, while the crisis of confidence in the United Nations to which the Central Committee referred in its statement a decade ago has changed in character, it persists and grows, especially in the “South”. The global hope for change which burst out in 1989 has given way to widespread disillusionment. The crisis in multilateralism continues, almost unabated, further widening and deepening the chasm between rich and poor nations, and virtually abandoning the least developed countries, the vast majority of which are in Africa.

All this considered, however, the affirmation of the WCC Church and Society Conference in 1966 remains valid:

The UN is the best structure now available through which to pursue the goals of international peace and justice. Like all institutions it is not sacrosanct and many changes are necessary (for it) to meet the needs of the world today. Nevertheless we call upon the churches of the world to defend it against all attacks which would weaken or destroy it and to seek out and advocate ways in which it can be transformed into an instrument fully capable of ensuring the peace and guaranteeing justice on a worldwide scale.

This commitment to the United Nations has its roots deep in the history of the ecumenical movement which has long advocated the shaping of global institutions capable of achieving the aims set out in the Preamble to the Charter:

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war..., and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...

to practice tolerance and live together in peace, with one another as good neighbors, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

The story of that commitment is worth recalling. International church leaders gathered in Geneva in August 1920 to work through the implications of the First World War for humankind and for Christianity, and to prepare the Universal Christian Conference on Life and Work held in Stockholm in 1925, which they hoped would contribute to the avoidance of another such catastrophe. That Stockholm Conference and the 1937 Oxford Conference on Church, Community and State called to further develop its ideas laid the foundations for modern ecumenical social thought in a range of areas, including the future of world order.

Preparing for Peace in the Midst of War.

In the spirit of Oxford, the Federal Council of Churches in the United States of America instituted a “Commission to Study the Bases of a Just and Durable Peace.” Drawing upon work of the Provisional Committee of the World Council of Churches, that Commission drew up a list of principles, almost all of which were incorporated into the draft UN Charter drawn up in 1944 at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C. That draft, however, still fell short of the churches’ expectations, and an additional list of Christian expectations for the Charter was elaborated which called for:

1. 
   The addition of a Preamble to the Charter which would “reaffirm those present and long range purposes of justice and human welfare...which reflect the aspirations of peoples everywhere.”
   
2. 
   The further development and codification of international law, “to the end that there shall be a progressive subordination of force to law.”
   
3. 
   ...
   
4. 
   The establishment of a special Commission to further the “progress of colonial and dependent peoples to autonomy...”
   
5. 
   The establishment of a special Commission on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which would, inter alia, develop and implement guarantees for religious freedom.
   
6. 
   Universal membership of the new Organization.
   
7. 
   Specific provisions for the limitation and reduction of armaments.
   
8. 
   Provisions to protect smaller nations from the exercise of arbitrary power by the great.
   
9. 
   Liberalized provision for amendments to the Charter which would not require the concurrence of the Permanent Members of the Security Council.
   

Commentators at the time credited the international Christian influence with having played a decisive role, especially in gaining the inclusion in the Charter of the more extensive provisions for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In the words of one prominent government representative to the San Francisco Conference, they

... exerted a profound influence upon the form and character which the world organization would take. As originally projected at Dumbarton Oaks, the organization was primarily a political device whereby the so-called great powers were to rule the world...

It was the religious people who took the lead in seeking that the organization should be dedicated not merely to a peaceful but to a just order. It was they who sought that reliance should be placed upon the moral forces which could be reflected in the General Assembly, the Social and Economic Council, and the Trusteeship Council rather than upon the power of a few militarily strong nations operating in the Security Council without commitment to any standards of law and justice.

The ecumenical observers were also influential in gaining the inclusion in the Charter of Article 71, which provides for “suitable arrangements for consultation with non-governmental organizations” with the Economic and Social Council. The Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, created in 1946, in part to play this role on behalf of the WCC, was among the first to be granted such official NGO status.

Subsequently, the CCIA was influential in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly with respect to its provisions on religious freedom, and in the formation of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Over the past five decades, the WCC as a whole has worked at the United Nations and with its Specialized Agencies on a wide ranging agenda which has included: decolonization, human rights, the struggle against racism and apartheid, the status of women, economic and social development, the rights of the child, world food policy, the rights of migrants and refugees, basic health care delivery, standards governing the activities of transnational corporations, education and literacy, election monitoring, environmental protection, human settlements, population, and response to humanitarian emergencies.

It has also been a respected participant in a wide range of international NGO coordinating committees and organizations, including the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations, of which the CCIA was a founder-member.

The World Council of Churches does not, therefore, critique the United Nations as either a newcomer or disinterested observer. Rather, it raises questions out of an intimate knowledge of the Organization, as a participant, and as a body committed to the goals and principles established in the Charter.

As noted earlier, the need for UN reform is widely recognized. As it stands, the UN is neither democratic, transparent nor fair. The competition among related agencies for funding, recognition and influence impairs effective action, and contributes to proliferation of sometimes overlapping bureaucracies and to the fragmentation of the global agenda.

The problem does not reside solely on the side of the UN. Among non-governmental organizations there are also major difficulties. Partly out of frustration with the incapacity, or unwillingness, of governments and intergovernmental organizations to deal effectively with the “peoples’ agenda,” there has been a burgeoning of civil society organizations at local, national, regional and international levels. While this proliferation is a positive development, efforts to coordinate effective NGO pressure on the UN system run up against what often seem to be almost insuperable obstacles.

Sometimes, it is NGOs who are at the root of problems. A case in point is the competition among private voluntary humanitarian relief agencies. Again, Rwanda is a case in point. There, the massive involvement of hundreds of voluntary agencies, some of them with more personnel and funds than the government itself, makes effective coordination virtually impossible. Many look to the UN for that coordination, but even with the best will (which is not always the case) it too often has inadequate staff, finances and logistic support to play this role effectively.

The global crisis in confidence in the UN often tends in the direction of self-fulfilling prophecy. Critical founder-nations use the criticism to justify withholding funds owed to the UN, or to cut their allocations, further impairing the capacity of the system to respond. Critical popular movements seek ways around the system in efforts to respond directly to peoples’ needs and the peoples’ agendas. The nations of the “South,” frustrated by the apparent inability of the UN to address their fundamental needs, are either driven into reliance on bilateral relationships which increase their “neocolonial” dependency, or are rendered defenseless against demands by bodies like the IMF and the World Bank to “restructure” their economies in ways which weaken their capacity to respond to urgent social requirements of their people.

There has been a proliferation of UN World Conferences during the period of the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of the UN. The hope was that these would galvanize international public opinion and governments’ policies behind concerted, more clearly defined international priorities. Many placed particular hopes in the Copenhagen Social Summit, which held out the promise of reordering the global social agenda. Undeniably, each of these great international gatherings was marked by specific achievements. But critics point out that they have tended more to divide governments along regional and “cultural” lines than to unify them behind clearly defined and mutually accepted objectives. “Civil society” organizations often consider themselves to have been marginalized from the policy-making process, and relegated to the role of mobilizing public opinion behind Conference conclusions which at times do not reflect a “peoples’ agenda”.

There is an understandable frustration with our collective incapacity to remedy problems long ago identified as the fundamental cause of conflict and human suffering. Partly as a result of the failure of the international community to deal with such long-standing problems as underdevelopment, the proliferation of nuclear and conventional armaments, discrimination against women and minorities, and the systematic violation of fundamental human rights, today’s challenges have become complex to the extent that they defy both imagination and action.

Considerations for WCC work with the UN System

A recent thorough review of WCC relationships with the UN system and associated NGO bodies shows an unusually broad involvement. It has also revealed that there is insufficient coherence and coordination within the Council itself, and with member churches and related ecumenical bodies. Steps are being taken to improve this, and to develop a more focused approach to WCC-UN relations. Among the conclusions reached have been the following:

1. 
   The WCC has its own agenda. We must be attentive to UN and other international developments in setting that agenda, but then develop relationships with the UN system in a way which responds to our own priorities and which guards against being diverted from them or coopted by others.
   
2. 
   A part of that agenda is to promote effective instruments of global governance. It has, therefore, a responsibility to inform and encourage member churches and related movements in their efforts to improve the UN system and to make it more responsive to the needs of peoples. Here, the CCIA UN Headquarters Liaison Office has a special role to play.
   
3. 
   The WCC should make effective use of those UN mechanisms to which it has access to pressure governments to comply with international norms and standards, such as those on human rights. In this process, the WCC should support and enable partners to represent their own interests in appropriate UN forums.
   
4. 
   When special events, such as world conferences, can be expected to result in constructive new policies or commitments by governments and the international community that have a direct relationship to the ecumenical agenda, the WCC should use them as a stimulus to help the churches articulate their own analysis and recommendations. One goal is obviously to influence the international agenda. But another valid one is to use such occasions for capacity building of the churches and other partners, and building more effective relationships with others who share our goals. A commitment to engage in such a process requires a commitment to help shape the agenda of such events from the earliest stages of preparation.
   
5. 
   The impact of the WCC on the UN agenda can often be maximized through select involvement with other non-governmental organizations and coordinating bodies.
   
6. 
   There is the need for clear priority setting for ecumenical involvement with the UN. It cannot, nor should it pretend to relate to the whole range of issues addressed by the UN. It must relate selectively, in relationship to its own programme priorities. Experience shows that day-to-day cooperation with selected specialized agencies and programme bodies are generally more effective than less focused involvements.
   
7. 
   The WCC functions in relationship to the UN as a non-governmental organization through the CCIA’s formal relationship with the Economic and Social Council and several Specialized Agencies, and through other relationships maintained by other programs of the Council. Indeed, the WCC may well be the largest, and most representative, in geographical terms, of the international NGOs, and possibly one of those closest to local realities. This is a necessary role for the churches, and one often highly appreciated by partners in the UN.
   
8. 
   The WCC should not, however, restrict its role vis-à-vis the UN to that of an NGO. It has a broader responsibility to the world of nations to give voice to ethical, moral and spiritual perspectives which must undergird international relations.
   
9. 
   In general, WCC relations with the UN should be viewed in the light of how we might use the instruments it provides to achieve the ecumenical vision of a just and peaceful world. In this way, it becomes not an extra burden, but part of the total work of the Council.
   

Against this background, the Central Committee, meeting in Geneva, 14-22 September 1995:

1. 
   reaffirms the dedication of the World Council of Churches to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Organization,
   
2. 
   reaffirms the centrality of the United Nations in the conduct of international relations, the safeguarding of the international rule of law, and the elaboration of norms and standards governing international behavior for the benefit of the whole of humankind and the global environment;
   
3. 
   reiterates its deep concern about trends in the UN as described in the accompanying Memorandum which have diverted it from aspirations expressed in the Preamble to the Charter, and thus erode public confidence;
   
4. 
   joins with those calling for a UN reform which would assure full participation in effective decision-making by all member states, redressing the present situation which tends to relegate small, less powerful, and economically deprived nations to subsidiary roles in the formation and implementation of international policy;
   
5. 
   calls for a comprehensive review, open to public scrutiny, of the structure and functioning of the Security Council, with regard especially to its domination by the present permanent members invested with veto powers;
   
6. 
   reaffirms the role of the United Nations in peace-keeping, while urging a thorough reassessment of the role of peace-keeping forces, ensuring that their deployment is in strict compliance with the terms of the Charter which protects the rights of states, and strengthening the role of cooperation for peace as a means of identifying and addressing the causes of international and internal conflicts before they become violent;
   
7. 
   calls upon the UN to reaffirm its commitment to the role of independent non-governmental organizations in the work of the Organization as a means to avail itself of expertise and information available through these bodies and to assure that the “peoples of the United Nations” and especially the victims of the present world disorder have an effective voice in shaping international policy and in guiding its implementation:
   
8. 
   appeals once again to all member states to cooperate actively with the United Nations, and to keep faith with their commitments to the financing of the Organization;
   
9. 
   reiterates its appeal to the churches to be alert to the activities and policies of their respective governments with a view to strengthening the capacity of the UN in areas such as the promotion and protection of human rights, the struggle against racism, the enhancement of the rights of women, aid to and protection of refugees and migrants, the effective international control of production and transfer of armaments, the elimination of nuclear weapons, protection of the global environment, and the realization of a just and equitable international economic order;
   
10. 
    reaffirms the role of the Board on International Affairs (Commission of the Churches on International Affairs) in maintaining and coordinating contact with the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies as the principal expression of the WCC as a non-governmental organization, and encourages it to review the adequacy of its present consultative status in the light of changes in the nature of NGO relations with ECOSOC;
    
11. 
    recognizes and reaffirms the role of Unit II through Churches’ Action for Health (CMC) in relation to the World Health Organization, and through the programme on Education for All God’s People on adult education and literacy with UNESCO; the contribution of Unit III to UN bodies in the field of racism, indigenous peoples, the status of women and youth, sustainable development and climate change; the cooperation of Unit IV with DHA (Department of Humanitarian Affairs), FAO, ILO, UNHCR and UNICEF; and the effective working relations of a wide range of Council programmes with intergovernmental and NGOs at international and regional levels;
    
12. 
    considers that the relationship of the World Council of Churches with the UN and its Specialized Agencies should be guided by its vocation as a major world ecumenical body in dialogue with people of other faiths, giving expression to the moral, ethical and spiritual dimensions which need to be confronted along with the political and economic aspects of the current crisis in global governance. The WCC should not confine itself to the role it presently exercises through the CCIA or other Council programmes as a non-governmental organization; and
    
13. 
    encourages the General Secretary, in his efforts to facilitate access of regional ecumenical bodies, national councils of churches and member churches to the United Nations to be alert to opportunities for the Council and its member churches to exercise their influence in ways which could contribute to the shaping of a just, participatory and peaceful world order.