TEXT A

Critics and supporters of the United Nations have sometimes seen worlds apart. But since last year, almost all of them, whether multilateralist or unilateralist, American or European, have come to agree that the organization is in crisis. This week, a blue ribbon panel commissioned by the body’s secretary-general, Kofi Annan, released its report on what to do about it. The U. N. ’s sorry state became most obvious with the Iraq war. Those favoring the war were furious that after a decade of Security Council resolutions, including the last-chance Resolution 1441 threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq did not prove its disarmament, the U. N. could not agree to act. Anti-war types were just as frustrated that the world body failed to stop the war. But Iraq was not the U. N.’s only problem. It has done little to stop humanitarian disasters, such as the ongoing horror in Sudan. And it has done nothing to stop Iran’s and North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Recognizing the danger of irrelevance, Mr. Annan last year told a 16-member panel, composed mainly of former government ministers and heads of government, to suggest changes. These fall broadly into two categories: the institutional and the cultural. The former has got most of the headlines -- particularly a call for changing the structure of the Security Council. But changes in the U. N. ’s working practices are crucial too. Everyone agrees that the Security Council is an unrepresentative relic: of its 15 seats, five are occupied by permanent, veto-wielding members (America, Russia, China, Britain and France) and ten go to countries that rotate every two years and have no veto. But that the council’s composition is a throwback to the world order immediately after the Second World War has been agreed on for decades, without any success in changing it. Japan and Germany, the secondand thirdbiggest contributors to the U.N. budget, believe they are entitled to permanent seats. So does India, the world’s second-most- populous country, and Brazil, Latin America’s biggest. Unlike in previous efforts, these four have finally banded together to press their case. And they are joined in spirit by the Africans, who want two seats for their continent. But each aspirant has opponents. Italy opposes a permanent seat for Germany, which would make Italy the only biggish European power. It instead proposes a single seat for the European Union, a non- starter since this would require Britain and France to give up theirs, and regional institutions cannot be U.N. members under the current U.N. Charter. Spanish-speaking Mexico and Argentina do not think Portuguese-speaking Brazil should represent Latin America, and Pakistan strongly opposes its rival India’s bid. As for potential African seats, Egypt claims one as the representative of the Muslim and Arab world. That would leave Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country, and South Africa, which is richer and a more stable democracy, fighting for the other. The panel has proposed two alternatives. The first would give six countries ( none is named but probably Germany, Japan, India, Brazil and two African countries) permanent seats without a veto, and create three extra non-permanent seats, bringing the total number of council members to 24. The second, which would expand the council by the same number of seats, creates a new middle tier of members who would serve for four years and could be immediately re-elected, above the current lower tier of two-year members, who cannot be re-elected. The rivals to the would-be permanent members favor this option. While Security Council reform may be the most visible of the proposals, the panel has also shared its views on the guidelines on when members may use force legally, tinder the U. N. Charter, they can do so in two circumstances only: Article 51 allows force in a clear case of self-defense, and Chapter Ⅶ permits its use when the Security Council agrees. While the panelists have not proposed major changes to these two parts of the Charter, they have offered refinements. Though the Charter was written to govern war between countries, the panel argues that even without revision, Chapter Ⅶ lets the Security Council authorize force for more controversial, modem reasons like fighting terrorists and intervention in states committing humanitarian horrors. It even considers "preventive" wars against serious but non-imminent threats potentially justifiable. But the panel also says any decision to use force must pass five tests: the threat must be grave; the primary purpose must be to avert the threat; force must be a last resort; means must be proportional; and there must be a reasonable chance that force will succeed without calamitous consequences. All common-sense stuff, but the panel proposes making these tests explicit (if subjective and unofficial), thus raising the quality of debate about any decision to go to war. On top of this, the report urges the U.N. to make better use of its assets in the fight against terrorism. One of the obstacles to an effective counter-terrorism strategy has been U.N. members’ inability to agree on a definition of terrorism. The panel tries to help by defining it as "any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants"; Arab countries may continue to press for exemptions in the case of "foreign occupation". The report also deals with what it sees as a possible "cascade of nuclear proliferation" in the near future. It recommends creating more incentives for countries to stop enriching uranium.

What’s the main topic of the passage