As it is right now, I do think it is time to bid the United Nations farewell. As many a scholar, politician and pundit will say, the UN is indeed a very idealistic organization that has done much for the world we live in. The many agencies of the UN have been visible in their efforts to support the downtrodden in this world.
But what about all the problems that it has caused us?
If we jump quickly back to the direct aftermath of the second world war, we will realise that the world power structure looked much like the UN looks today. The victors of WWII needed to cement their hold over the world and so they gave us the United Nation. Again, it was pretty useful back then. The idea was to prevent the world from experiencing again that which it was going through. Commendable. Millions of lives were lost, many more left destitute. The losers were forced to pay a hefty price for their actions (not considering the reasons behind them; Hitler was a loon, the Japanese too). Never again was a mantra applied everywhere, and not just in relation to the German ovens and the murder of the Jews by the millions.
Fast forward to today, but not too fast to skip over the following decades. The Korean War came almost directly after; the wars between Israel and its Arab neighbours, a brainchild of the UN and its western sponsors, an idea implemented in a half-hearted manner that has given us perpetual warfare; African independence, a symbol whose value one can question; the Vietnam War; numerous coup d’états; the ever-present India-Pakistan conflict. These are all areas where the United Nations has failed.
Makes you really think; “never again” — for whom? The Africans didn’t really count, most of them didn’t even have a seat at the UN at the time of its inception. The ones that did were represented by the colonial powers, which really gave them more room to force their own agendas.
Born with an agenda
Why was it that the League of Nations, an American idea really, was not good enough for the Americans but the UN, conceived in San Francisco and born and bred in New York, was? Well because, unlike the League, nobody even made the effort to disguise just how it was going to be. The league was meant to be a place for nations/states to get together to try to resolve problems, ostensibly on an equal footing. The U.N, on the other hand, really sought to preserve the position that the victors of WWII had secured for themselves. Even though one can ask oneself what exactly the French did to get themselves a seat, aside from helping liberate their own country.
Let’s look at the structure of the United Nations.
There are plenty of UN organs but the two that actually matter in geopolitical affairs are the Security Council (SC) and the General Assembly (GA). The UN is meant to be a democratic institution. One whose charter, or constitution, provides for and protects the most blatant form of discrimination. We have the GA, where every member has one vote. But for most matters, the GA needs to work in collaboration with the SC, or in the case of admission to the UN, under the SC. The SC has 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent.
First things first. Why?
Why are there permanent members? What have they done to deserve it aside from winning a mega war, 69 years ago? A war one can argue was a direct result of their own actions. A war from which they learned nothing, not then, not now. Everybody talks about the victor’s justice. But we also know that was the reason for WWII. Are people basically admitting we are heading for a mega war again? Is that what the UN really is? A forum where we are to prepare ourselves for war? By what measure, reason, and right do they continue to retain their permanent seats, the “P-5”?
Economic power?
The Japanese and the Germans are economically more powerful than three of the permanent members. But of course they can’t have a seat. They are the evil the permanents fought to ward off all those years ago. Ok then.
Responsible powers?
Perhaps it’s time for a recap. For much of its existence, the UN and the SC were basically forums for the East (Communists) and the West (Capitalists) to compare penis sizes. Not that the East is not the East anymore, it has really turned into an American show, with the French and British, their “allies” trying to retain their relevance by engaging in some very questionable behaviour.
The US invaded a nation twice, destroyed the social fabric, and forced people to starve to death. All this despite the UN and even the SC clearly forbidding it. But what were the consequences for the US? That’s right. Nothing.
But let’s take Iran for example. Under UN sanctions for ‘suspicious activity’. Which, by the way, is its nuclear program, one it is entitled to under international law. It is accused of trying to gain ‘threshold nuclear power’ status, which they supposedly can’t under the NPT.
But never mind that Sweden has the same status, and it actually already tried assembling nuclear weapons. Japan, the country against whom the UN was created, also possesses the same capabilities. Israel is a nation that not only possesses nuclear weapons but threatened to use it in an active, hot conflict yet North Korea is sanctioned to the brink of extinction. What kind of democratic organization is the UN then, which engages in such blatant discrimination? What happened to the principle of equality amongst nations? Much like everything else about the United Nations, it looks good on paper. Not so much in practice. And we should all know the UN is all about aesthetics.
But it is not about ideology anymore. Right now, it is about cultural hegemony. Look at Obama telling his countrymen they are “exceptional”, instilling in them the idea that they have the right to rule over the world. So much for being a responsible power. One had to think the same as others to be a part of their ideological clique. But not anymore. I believe it was the French interior minister (Claude Guéant) who said “to us, not all civilizations are equal” implying they had a superior civilization to the Arabs.
So I ask again, by what right?
Military power?
The permanent members have been directly and indirectly responsible for many of the problems in the world. Be it through direct intervention or behind the scenes instigation. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, the Suez Crisis, and the many simmering conflicts between 1945 and today. The Korean War was the work of the UN Security Council itself!
The Americans and Russians have been holding the UN hostage and forcing it to cater to their whims. What exactly is the purpose of the veto that permanent members possess? Is it not enough that they have permanent seats? The SC is meant to be the ‘elite’ of the UN.
But no, that’s not enough.
They must be the elite of the elite (side note: all members of the UNSC equivalent in the League of Nations had a veto, which the US found to be too cumbersome so they took away the council veto rights except for their own WW2 allies). We all know very well just how much Americans like the sound of that. At least the Chinese limit their interventions to issues of direct importance to them. They do not have “national interests” all over the world, interests not defined, which everybody else must bow to and accept unquestioningly. The French and the British have been quite conservative in their use of the veto, especially since the end of the cold war, which incidentally is when China started using its veto more.
Since the end of the Cold War, Russia and USA have been the most liberal in casting their vetoes, standing at 27 and 17 respectively, from 1992 to 2020. Most of these negative votes were exclusively to protect their allies. In fact, of the USA’s 17 votes, 15 (~90%) have been in relation to Israel and its illegal occupation of Palestine. Of Russia’s 27 vetoes, 21 (78%) were to protect Syria from condemnation in the ongoing civil war (2011-). Clearly, the purpose of the veto is not to promote global peace but to shield themselves and their allies from the consequences of their actions.
Seriously. What is the point of the SC?
Given that there are at least 40 conflicts ongoing right now (2021) with at least hundreds of casualties, both national and international, it is very hard not to conclude that the security council has failed in its mandate to ensure global peace. In fact, veto use is on the rise again after a short lull immediately following the collapse of the USSR. You can see that in the chart below.
Why is it so hard to reform the UN?
The complacency of people is the main issue. We seem to think that we have a justice-based organisation at the center of the global order but that is not true. One can argue that it was so from the beginning when the US and USSR used their vetoes to play games with the lives of ordinary citizens of newly independent states (from colonial powers — mainly two of the other security council members).
While it is bold of some countries (Germany, South Africa, India, Nigeria, Brazil etc.) to try to seek permanent membership, just like they realised the present SC does not work, they must realise the present UN does not work either. They would be better off investing their energies in other ventures that will actually contribute to their “interests” being safeguarded, which may give us a world just a teeny tiny bit like the one we would all like to live in.
Of course, the problem with the movement for UN reform is the same one that haunts the other movements. Those calling for reform do not want to address the structural deficiencies of the UN but rather want it altered so they too can reap asymmetric benefits. Case in point are Germany, India, and Brazil, all of which are specifically seeking veto powers for themselves, not a reformation of the Security Council.
To conclude, we should be aiming for an organization that will ensure peace, fairness, and equality in international relations. That purpose becomes all the more critical when we take into account the rising power of China and the inevitable lashing out we will witness from the current global hegemon. We are presented with the opportunity, yet again, to reshape the global order but there is nothing to say we will not squander this golden chance too.
