MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Dmitry Kosyrev.) -- Can the United Nations be reformed or will it collapse as soon as radical changes begin? This is the key question for many participants in the 60th General Assembly, which opened in New York on September 13.
The main event of the jubilee session happened on the second day, when over 150 of the 191 heads of state and government met to sign the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. It is based on the Russian draft suggested in 1997, which is why President Vladimir Putin was offered to be the first to sign it.
It would be enough for 22 countries to sign and ratify the convention to make it law, and nobody expects any problems here.
The convention is the 13th anti-terrorism document adopted by the UN and the first practical paper closing the loopholes left open by other documents. Its provisions should be subsequently incorporated into the national legislation of the UN member states.
Besides, the UN Security Council has held a summit meeting, which happens rarely. The world's leaders discussed terrorism and suggested formalizing the provision on refusing to harbor the inciters of terrorism. They also debated the possibility of punishing the inciters and advocates of terrorism.
The issue was prompted by the recent explosions in the London underground but concerns not only Britain. The UN acted as the global parliament and lawmaker on this issue.
Terrorism is one of the few issues on which the UN member states are unanimous. Unfortunately, their opinions are clashing on many other problems, which deadlocks their solution.
One of them is the proposed enlargement of the Security Council. This part of the UN reform, which many regard as crucial, was doomed to perish in a clash of several mutually excluding projects advanced by different countries and groups of states. So, it was simply crossed out from the draft resolution on UN reform.
Another, only slightly easier issue, concerned the reform of the Human Rights Committee initiated by the United States. Washington suggested turning the committee into a club of initially democratic states, thus perpetuating their right to set the tune in this sphere.
But the bulk of member states reject this formula. Besides, this would run counter to the crucial UN provision that all member states should have an opportunity to take an equal part in the work of any of the UN divisions and programs. This created a deadlock not unlike the one over the Security Council. After mutual concessions, it was decided to reform the Human Rights Committee. But who will reform it and how? These questions will be answered within the next few months.
Alexander Yakovenko, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia responsible for Russian diplomacy in the UN, assessed this situation as optimistic. He said the key task of Moscow had been to strengthen the UN and its Security Council. Therefore, the compromises reached shortly before the jubilee GA reinforced the UN against the first tidal waves of reform.
The rapidly changing world needs a changed UN, because more and more new strong players appear and demand international respect for their views and their new status. In the past, such situations mostly led to wars. But today the world can use the UN mechanism to solve the problems through talks and compromises, however long and tiring this process may seem to observers.
