Uniting nations after Iraq

September 20, 2004

It is more than four centuries since the Dutch legal prodigy Hugo Grotius expounded his then remarkable notion of an international society in which all states and their rulers would be bound by common rules.

In an age of fevered expansion of colonial empires, Dr Grotius first argued, to the astonishment of many, that the world's oceans should not be subject to the controls of marauding armadas, but be free for the innocent use and passage of all. He later expanded this idea to become the first scholar to imagine a body of international law, around which a regulated, global community would live.

The question of whether nations can ever be truly bound by common rules, or whether the international community can act collectively to prevent or end armed conflicts, to combat terrorism, to topple dictators or to save humanity from famine, disease, genocide or poverty, is just as pertinent today. The only global mechanism in place to attempt such co-operation is the 191-member United Nations. When the UN refused to back the United States-led invasion of Iraq last year, the US President, George Bush, sniped that the world body would simply fade into history as an "ineffective, irrelevant, debating society". Last week, as the 59th annual UN General Assembly meeting opened in New York, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, unequivocally stated the war in Iraq was illegal.

Since the Iraq invasion, there has been much valid criticism of the UN's ponderous and outdated mechanisms for addressing the new global threats such as transnational terrorism and crime, and weapons of mass destruction. At issue, too, is the UN's waning legitimacy. The UN Security Council, which rules on the legality or otherwise of the use of military force, is dominated by the victors of World War II - the United States, Russia, France and Britain, plus China. But at the same time the bloody quagmire in Iraq makes a very persuasive case for a renewed push for effective international co-operation. And Mr Annan knows the UN's future depends on its capacity to reform. An expert panel is due to unveil its revamped UN design in December.

There is no way forward, however, without reconciliation between the US and the rest of the international community. A more responsive UN would rely heavily on the military power and funds of the world's wealthier nations, none more singularly important than world's sole remaining superpower. This means considering Washington's interests - such as its contentious assertion that the legal right to self defence should include pre-emptive first strikes on a potential aggressor - while expanding the Security Council to more accurately reflect the global balance of power in the 21st century. Japan, Germany, Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa are under consideration for inclusion. Terrorism, undoubtedly, will be especially hard to define and address.

The General Assembly is meeting under this long shadow. The success of the UN's reform effort is vital. Without a respected global umpire, the world reverts to Dr Grotius's 17th century reality in which raw power alone determines who makes the rules.

School reports: can do better

In 1997 the state Education Department decided that government schools should produce annual reports, just like corporations, clubs and a host of other organisations. The idea was that parents would be able to see where a school was doing well and where it needed to improve. It is an "excellent concept", the Auditor-General, Bob Sendt, says. But not excellent in practice. Mr Sendt has assessed a large sample of these reports and finds them short on some pertinent information, while the information they do provide is often vague and sometimes misleading.

Part of the problem is that some information is simply not permitted because of various protocols, including agreements with the NSW Teachers' Federation. School annual reports cannot use test results to allow ranking of schools or students - the very comparisons many parents would like. However, schools are allowed to compare their academic results with state averages. Not surprisingly, schools tend to report comparisons that make them look good and ignore those that do not. The resulting picture is incomplete and slanted. Away from academic performance, Mr Sendt finds many other shortcomings, including a dearth of information about class sizes, teacher qualifications and school resources.

Not surprisingly, the schools' annual reports do not seem to be valued by the community. Indeed, Mr Sendt notes that when last year's reports did not appear because of industrial action, the public did not seem to notice. However, Mr Sendt says, the annual reports can be fixed, and he offers a long list of recommendations. They include a re-examination of just what schools are allowed to report. He favours including comparisons with other schools and with benchmarks. He also suggests a system of external review - just as companies have outside auditors - to ensure the objectivity and consistency of the annual reports. The presentation of material needs to be clearer, too. The Education Department has pledged to implement the recommendations. Presumably it said the same after the audits in 2001 and 1999.

Improved disclosure should not be allowed to stigmatise poorly performing schools but instead should spur the department to make improvements where they are needed. In any event, parents need clear, complete academic results if they are to make an informed choice of school. Annual reports must have at their core rigorous academic data that allows reliable comparisons between schools. Otherwise the annual reports are no more than a hollow PR exercise.

Advertisement Advertisement