Alec Saunders SquawkBox

Headlines over the weekend were about Tony Blair’s calls for UN reform.  Here in Ottawa, I read the Citizen and an editorial by Blair in the Globe and Mail. He is calling for:

1. A reformed security council.  It makes no sense that five victors of World War II hold permanent seats.
2. The UN to have the capability to intervene militarily.  Putting aside Iraq, he argues that the UN should have forces at it’s disposal to go to places like Darfur.
3. Increased power for the General Secretary over spending and management.

In addition, he argues that:

1. The World Bank and the IMF need to be reformed, or perhaps merged.
2. The world needs a multilateral institution for the safe enrichment of uranium for energy purposes.  He makes the very sensible observation that every nuclear nation doesn’t need its own enrichment facility.
3. The G8+5 meets regularly, and should be the norm.
4. The UN Environment Program needs to match the importance that the environment now has on the international agenda.

Blair also calls for the world to support the goal of democracy in Iraq.  He asks countries to put aside the past, and come together to help build democratic institutions in Iraq. He couches all of this in the language of interdependence, and multi-lateralism. 

Is this a departure from three years ago when he said that human rights trumps sovereignty, and that he and Mr. Bush would go to Iraq alone?  Or is it just a re-spin of the same message? 

His statements about the legitimacy of the UN have many truthful elements. The lofty goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not being met in today’s institutions, and the UN itself is mired in bureacracy and frequently unable to address the issues of the day.  His calls for reform should be heard, and considered.

In the end, though, it really boils down to this: Does Britain’s war-monger, and George Bush’s poodle, himself, have the legitimacy to effect the reforms he advocates?