It is clear that the United Nations system has not kept pace with a global dispensation where state power is increasingly challenged by the power of instant communications and a sophisticated global financial system that pays no more than lip service to national borders. Similarly, an emerging international civil society could see an international convention on landmines passed despite strong government resistance from countries such as the United States, while transnational organised crime and international business corporations benefit from a more open and less restricted world economic system. The proposal of the UN Secretary-General in Partnerships for Global Community in 1998, to establish "a mutually beneficial dialogue with the international business community" is but one recognition of this trend. Another is the partnership developing between the UN and non-governmental organisations — the birth of a global civil society.
The global community recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the UN — a low-key affair that has not served to revitalise a system that is in dire need for reinvention if it is to meet the challenges of emerging global patterns of interaction. The UN has a special responsibility to insist on global solutions — to move from a statist and interest-based to a rules-based system, rules that are fair to all and not only in the interests of the rich and powerful countries, or of criminals posing as legitimate state representatives. In Kofi Annan’s words "... the global village ... must be embedded in an guided by broadly shared values and principles; its policing functions and the provision of other public goods must be strengthened and made more predictable." The UN is, of course, ultimately held hostage by those countries with the resources and will to commit themselves in support of the world body. Any move to a rules-based global security framework will inevitably reduce the resources available in crises where the interests of the wealthier established democracies are at stake such as on the fringes of Europe, and will redirect resources to regions such as Africa where the need is large.
The move to a rules-based international system must be supported by a move away from conflict mediation that is based on traditional notions of diplomacy — often merely an attempt to get opposing parties to the table. It is becoming increasingly evident that a number of African leaders have personal financial or other interests in perpetuating conflict. This concept of ‘leveraged negotiations’ should seek to involve multinational companies that claim good corporate governance practices and social responsibility, yet simultaneously seek to benefit from war ravaged economies such as in Angola. Taxes and bribes paid for mineral exploration often fuel wars and conflict. Business cannot merely ‘do business’. Similarly, the increased evidence of corruption and money laundering by senior political figures in non-democratic countries need to be used to leverage peace. Leaders who benefit in irregular ways from their political positions need to be exposed, investigated and treated as the criminals they are. The concept of leveraged negotiations calls for the involvement of all organisations and parties that have a stake in a conflict, including intelligence agencies, multinational corporations, neighbouring governments and international organisations such as Interpol.
Collectively, the move to a rules-based international system and ‘leveraged negotiations’ may contribute to greater stability in Africa. These changes need to complement the reforms in the Security Council and the manner in which the international community seeks to prevent and mediate conflict.