At the time of creation of the United Nations, there were 99 countries in the world. Majority of these countries were either colonial powers or their colonies with the exception of Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Liberia, Nepal & Thailand which escaped the tyranny of colonialism. The whole of mainland China was not colonised but it had ceded control of certain territories to Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, USA, & Austro-Hungarian empire (Pacific atrocities education, Peter Lassalle-Klein Nov, 2019). Mongolia and Korea although not colonised as such they had their own history of invasion and occupation by Japan.
The objective of the United Nations (UN) at the time of its creation in 1945 was to maintain international peace, security, international cooperation and promotion of wellbeing of people worldwide. The role of the UN envisaged in1945 with the above geopolitical landscape was very different from today with 193 UN member states and 71 territories.
Is the UN a failure?
In recent decades there have been numerous articles on the UN accusing it of being unfit for the job. Some accuse it of corruption and nepotism. Some others say it is inefficient while some accuse it of trying to institutionalise a global government which poses a direct threat to national sovereignty. Various bodies in the USA have proposed the USA to defund the UN and get out of the UN no less than three times. The French President Charles de Gaulle preferred a country-to-country peace treaty rather than through the UN for a global peace and security treaty. In 2004 the Israeli Ambassador to the UN even accused the UN of supporting genocide and terrorism and suggested that it is largely supporting dictatorships. In recent days the criticism of the UN in the mainstream media and social media have become fierce saying that the UN is a total failure. There are no boundaries on the criticisms of the UN system including the choice of words to defy the UN system. One of the biggest complaints against the UN is its inability to prevent armed conflict.
Is the UN a total failure? There are structural, administrative and bureaucratic hindrances, but no, the UN is definitely not a failure. It is the UN member states, which not only failed the UN system but have become obstructionists on several occasions in its works, to stop it from achieving its objectives, in establishing peace and maintaining security. Blaming the UN has become a favourite pastime of many journalists and selected international non-governmental organisations and some UN member states unable to make it do what they want. The UN is not a failure.
Structural issue
The UN is like an ancient building which is showing cracks, tilts and leakages. The structure of the UN designed in 1945 with gradual addons is becoming obsolete in many ways incompatible with people’s expectations. For some even the foundation of the UN appears to be in doubt, despite the fact that the UN Charter is still as good as it can be. In the eyes of God all men are created equal. Similarly, all member states of the UN are equal in status, but in practice, some are more equal than others in both cases. Some of the practices in the UN system are in sharp contrast to the idea of democracy and good governance. Take for example the UN GA resolution of 23 Feb 2023 to end Russia-Ukraine war voted by 141 member states; UN GA resolution of 26 October for a humanitarian truce to protect civilians voted in favour by 120 countries; UN GA resolution on 2 Nov 2023 to lift the US embargo on Cuba voted by 185 member states. This is the 29th yearly resolution on Cuba yet the embargo remains. These are some of the most recent GA resolutions which went unnoticed. It is the magic work of elite members to strangulate the system, not a failure of the system.
International law
Law and order are assumed to be a bedrock of modern civilisation and a framework for peace. There are many binding resolutions adapted and prescribed by the UN to its member states. But some countries openly defy implementing many such binding resolutions and the UN is unable to take any action. Some countries are referred to the International Criminal Court for violating human rights law, but some other countries with similar violations go unnoticed and protected by the elite UN member states. Such selective application of international law exposes the helplessness of the UN. Whatever good the UN has done in the world through its organisations, agencies and commissions are undermined by its failings on geopolitical boxing matches played in the Security Council on which it has no control. None of these are new to you, the readers.
As of 31 Oct 2023, 4,337 UN peacekeepers have died while guarding the conflict areas. This excludes those who were killed in duty stations such as in Iraq where 22 UN staff were killed in 2023 UN office bombing. In Gaza 102 UN staff have been killed as of 10 Nov while the UN offices were bombed. The UN is unable to take legal actions even when its own staff are killed. People rightly complain that the UN has lost its moral standing for not being able to prevent wars and conflicts and bring truce.
Nucleus of the UN system
In 1996 Boutros-Ghali ran unopposed for his second term with 14-1 vote in the Security Council but was devoid of a second term despite the fact that 9 votes were sufficient to get elected. Power of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can override the opinion, decision and resolutions passed in the General Assembly consisting of 193 members. So, how do you expect the UN to do anything substantive?
As stated by Childers majority of the UN member states are unhappy that the “three Western powers [the UK, US, and France] behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions” (Erskine Childers, University of Notre Dame, December 1994), a fait accompli.
The treaty on cluster bombs banning its production and use has been signed and ratified by 124 countries. In the Russia-Ukraine war both parties are known to have used cluster bombs. Russia manufactures its own while Ukraine’s stockpile was allegedly supplied by the USA. Similarly, conflicts between the opposing parties in Syria are backed by Russia and the USA where the parties are accused of using cluster bombs. The story is exactly the same on issues of landmines with 164 state parties with 133 signatories. China, Russia and the USA are all members of P5 who have not yet signed treaties on cluster bombs and landmines. In Gaza there appear to be still a debate if it is a genocide or not. The permanent members of the Security Council should have been the trend setters.
In 1967 Richard Nixon criticized the UN as ‘obsolete and inadequate for the present-day Cold War’ during his presidential campaign. Jean Kirkpatrick, the US Ambassador to the UN had suggested that the discussions in the Security Council is ‘neither a political debate nor an effort at problem solving’ (Legitimacy and Force, Jean Kirkpatrick, Political and Moral Dimension, Vol I, 1983.).
It is easy for people and institutions to blame the UN system but no critique has come forward with a workable proposal to resolve the issues they have identified.
Who is responsible?
The failings of the UN are largely due to the disagreements between the elitists in the United Nations chambers. The UN has no mechanisms to penalize the member states for failing to ratify UN conventions or providing weapons to countries in conflicts. A review of the vetos casted by the permanent members of the Security Council should clarify how the wars and conflicts are taking shape globally. The UN has simply become a punching bag for everyone.
Is the UN a failure?
In recent decades there have been numerous articles on the UN accusing it of being unfit for the job. Some accuse it of corruption and nepotism. Some others say it is inefficient while some accuse it of trying to institutionalise a global government which poses a direct threat to national sovereignty. Various bodies in the USA have proposed the USA to defund the UN and get out of the UN no less than three times. The French President Charles de Gaulle preferred a country-to-country peace treaty rather than through the UN for a global peace and security treaty. In 2004 the Israeli Ambassador to the UN even accused the UN of supporting genocide and terrorism and suggested that it is largely supporting dictatorships. In recent days the criticism of the UN in the mainstream media and social media have become fierce saying that the UN is a total failure. There are no boundaries on the criticisms of the UN system including the choice of words to defy the UN system. One of the biggest complaints against the UN is its inability to prevent armed conflict.
Is the UN a total failure? There are structural, administrative and bureaucratic hindrances, but no, the UN is definitely not a failure. It is the UN member states, which not only failed the UN system but have become obstructionists on several occasions in its works, to stop it from achieving its objectives, in establishing peace and maintaining security. Blaming the UN has become a favourite pastime of many journalists and selected international non-governmental organisations and some UN member states unable to make it do what they want. The UN is not a failure.
Structural issue
The UN is like an ancient building which is showing cracks, tilts and leakages. The structure of the UN designed in 1945 with gradual addons is becoming obsolete in many ways incompatible with people’s expectations. For some even the foundation of the UN appears to be in doubt, despite the fact that the UN Charter is still as good as it can be. In the eyes of God all men are created equal. Similarly, all member states of the UN are equal in status, but in practice, some are more equal than others in both cases. Some of the practices in the UN system are in sharp contrast to the idea of democracy and good governance. Take for example the UN GA resolution of 23 Feb 2023 to end Russia-Ukraine war voted by 141 member states; UN GA resolution of 26 October for a humanitarian truce to protect civilians voted in favour by 120 countries; UN GA resolution on 2 Nov 2023 to lift the US embargo on Cuba voted by 185 member states. This is the 29th yearly resolution on Cuba yet the embargo remains. These are some of the most recent GA resolutions which went unnoticed. It is the magic work of elite members to strangulate the system, not a failure of the system.
International law
Law and order are assumed to be a bedrock of modern civilisation and a framework for peace. There are many binding resolutions adapted and prescribed by the UN to its member states. But some countries openly defy implementing many such binding resolutions and the UN is unable to take any action. Some countries are referred to the International Criminal Court for violating human rights law, but some other countries with similar violations go unnoticed and protected by the elite UN member states. Such selective application of international law exposes the helplessness of the UN. Whatever good the UN has done in the world through its organisations, agencies and commissions are undermined by its failings on geopolitical boxing matches played in the Security Council on which it has no control. None of these are new to you, the readers.
As of 31 Oct 2023, 4,337 UN peacekeepers have died while guarding the conflict areas. This excludes those who were killed in duty stations such as in Iraq where 22 UN staff were killed in 2023 UN office bombing. In Gaza 102 UN staff have been killed as of 10 Nov while the UN offices were bombed. The UN is unable to take legal actions even when its own staff are killed. People rightly complain that the UN has lost its moral standing for not being able to prevent wars and conflicts and bring truce.
Nucleus of the UN system
In 1996 Boutros-Ghali ran unopposed for his second term with 14-1 vote in the Security Council but was devoid of a second term despite the fact that 9 votes were sufficient to get elected. Power of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council can override the opinion, decision and resolutions passed in the General Assembly consisting of 193 members. So, how do you expect the UN to do anything substantive?
As stated by Childers majority of the UN member states are unhappy that the “three Western powers [the UK, US, and France] behave in the Council, like a private club of hereditary elite-members who secretly come to decisions and then emerge to tell the grubby elected members that they may now rubber-stamp those decisions” (Erskine Childers, University of Notre Dame, December 1994), a fait accompli.
The treaty on cluster bombs banning its production and use has been signed and ratified by 124 countries. In the Russia-Ukraine war both parties are known to have used cluster bombs. Russia manufactures its own while Ukraine’s stockpile was allegedly supplied by the USA. Similarly, conflicts between the opposing parties in Syria are backed by Russia and the USA where the parties are accused of using cluster bombs. The story is exactly the same on issues of landmines with 164 state parties with 133 signatories. China, Russia and the USA are all members of P5 who have not yet signed treaties on cluster bombs and landmines. In Gaza there appear to be still a debate if it is a genocide or not. The permanent members of the Security Council should have been the trend setters.
In 1967 Richard Nixon criticized the UN as ‘obsolete and inadequate for the present-day Cold War’ during his presidential campaign. Jean Kirkpatrick, the US Ambassador to the UN had suggested that the discussions in the Security Council is ‘neither a political debate nor an effort at problem solving’ (Legitimacy and Force, Jean Kirkpatrick, Political and Moral Dimension, Vol I, 1983.).
It is easy for people and institutions to blame the UN system but no critique has come forward with a workable proposal to resolve the issues they have identified.
Who is responsible?
The failings of the UN are largely due to the disagreements between the elitists in the United Nations chambers. The UN has no mechanisms to penalize the member states for failing to ratify UN conventions or providing weapons to countries in conflicts. A review of the vetos casted by the permanent members of the Security Council should clarify how the wars and conflicts are taking shape globally. The UN has simply become a punching bag for everyone.
Read more articles by Ramesh by clicking here
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Or contact Ramesh at ramesh.chauni@gmail.com
Good review and overall conclusion, Ramesh. We all know the UN has many flaws & weaknesses, including the ones you point out, but, onbalance, it remains an essential organization. As someone said, if the UN did not exist, we would be trying to invent it, and most likely it would be harder to agree on as good and succinct Charter as the one we have today. Among the most important flaws, in fact its "birth defect" or the "original sin" in the current Charter is the veto system, I strongly agree with our esteemed colleague Anwarul Chowdhury that "If only one reform action could be taken, it should be the abolition of veto.....the veto power influences not only the decisions of the Security Council but also all work of the UN, including importantly the choice of the Secretary-General". https://www.ipsnews.net/2022/03/veto-chief-culprit-expulsion-suspension-not-remedy/ .
ReplyDeleteThank you Ramesh. I believe in the UN like I believe in the public sector. They are the only legitimate recourse for just peace and for social and economic justice. And this is why they are punching bags. And this is why one should steer criticisms towards reform. There are no alternatives. If one believes they should be abolished, then one should imagine the world without them.
ReplyDelete