Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2011 > UN: Is it Still Relevant?

Mainstream, VOL XLIX, No 44, October 22, 2011

UN: Is it Still Relevant?

Tuesday 25 October 2011

#socialtags

by MRINAL CHATTERJEE

October 24 is observed as the UN Day. The following article is being published in that context.

The United Nations (UN) was founded on October 24, 1945, at a time in history when a large number of people in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean still lived under alien rulers. The principles and values under which the UN was created served to inform and give moral and political authority to the struggle against colonialism and apartheid. With great foresight the founders of the United Nations identified a set of fundamental Purposes and Principles, which are still relevant today. They said that its Purposes are “to maintain inter-national peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-deter-mination; to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character; and to be the centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common goals”. In short, the UN was founded to serve as a conscience of the world and collective energy for dealing with the most pressing challenges facing humanity.

Since its creation these Principles of the UN became the guiding spirit for a better world order. There are many examples. The world united under the UN to oppose apartheid resulting in a new era in South Africa. East Timor gained independence. So did several other countries. In fact in the last six-and-a-half decades, the number of people living in colonies has come down from 750 million to less than one. Decolonisation and the fight against apartheid are perhaps among the best successes for the UN General Assembly.

The UN achieved success in other areas as well. From human rights to environmental conservation the UN built consensus and created norms. It strengthened international human rights and international humanitarian law. UN agencies continue to make great strides working in countries and with communities all over the world to fight poverty, hunger, diseases, malnutrition, infant and maternal mortality and a whole range of other things.

However, the UN has failed on several occasions, especially in regard to its core missions: the promotion of international peace and the better realisation of human rights. Consider, for example, the internal war within the Russian Federation that has raged in Chechnya for several years; or failed states across West Africa which flounder in near anarchy; or the African Great Lakes region, where international and internal conflicts have compounded a long simmering, genocidal inter-ethnic conflict; or the human tragedies associated with authoritarian nightmares such as Burma’s or North Korea’s. In each of these conflict areas, the UN has been unable to fully realise its potential.

The UN has inner contradictions, which have become more visible and pronounced with the changing socio-political and economic environ-ment. In the last six-and-a-half decades, the UN has experienced the fallout of the rivalries between great powers. It has been the theatre of the ideological war of the Cold War era. It has also witnessed the attempt by some countries to usurp its decision-making power, which is against the basic principle of the Organisation. Meanwhile, the number and influence of the developing countries in the UN have grown many folds. Some poor and underdeveloped countries like India and Brazil have become economic powerhouses and tried to play a greater and more responsible role in the UN, something which some erstwhile powerful states have tried to stall or deny. The relationship of these powerful states with the United Nations has at times been contradictory. They have tended to resort to the Organisation and utilise it to advance their narrow national interests and objectives. Thus they have refused to understand the concerns of the rest of humanity and to act on them. We see this in many instances. The starkest are the attempts to reduce the role of the UN and deny it resources for development activities. This is done despite the achievements of the UN in this field.

It is because of this that many people see the UN today as an instrument of the powerful. They lose hope and even become desperate when they see the Organisation passing countless resolutions and commanding action only when the interests of the powerful are threatened or doing nothing precisely for the same reason.

Another problem for the UN is that the powerful states continuously seek to be treated in an exceptional manner refusing to accept the norms and rules of the Organisation which they themselves champion. They view these as being applicable to other states but not to themselves. However, this exceptionalism unwittingly undermines the norms and legal frameworks established under the United Nations in many areas.

Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Republic of South Africa, in his LSE (London School of Economics) Lecture Series on the ‘Relevance of the United Nations at Sixty’ in 2006, highlighted another point: there is no harmonisation between the General Assembly and Security Council. Whereas the General Assembly is more representative and therefore will have broader views and more sensitive to the needs of humanity as a whole, the Security Council tends to be exclusivist. Dr Zuma cited the example of his country. Even though apartheid was declared a crime against humanity, action against it at the UN did not always receive unanimous support. The UNSC (Security Council) was not responsive to the General Assembly even as it tried to impose economic sanctions against the apartheid regime; the three Western Members of the UNSC used their veto. The General Assembly was the body that drove the agenda to resolve the South African problem peacefully together with the UNESCO, ILO, WHO and others.

ALL these weaknesses give rise to the question: does the world still need a body whose functioning is dictated by a handful of powerful countries? In other words, is the UN relevant now? It is a fact that despite its weaknesses, we are better off with the United Nations than we would be without it. Therefore, the question that should be asked is: what can be done to make the United Nations, at sixtysix, more relevant for the present and the future?

The key lies in the UN Member-States realising that the problems and challenges facing the world today require a collective global response. It needs to be recognised that the international system will earn its credibility from its ability to address the concerns of all peoples whether they are poor or rich. As long as the countries are unable to see that they all stand to benefit from the resolution of each other’s problems, whether it is underdevelop-ment or conflict, they will not be able to construct an effective multilateral system. It has to be also appreciated that more than prevention of war, the UN should focus on addressing the root cause of conflict. It should focus more on development and social security than military intervention, important though it is at places. For example, implementation of the Millennium Development Goals should get priority over other issues. The UN should continue to lobby for more resources so that all humanity could have the possibility to have access to clean water, sanitation, housing, health, education and indeed meet the goal of reducing poverty by half in 2015. For this the Bretton Woods Institutions need to contribute more resources for development.

The following are some of the pressing issues that need to be addressed if the UN is to remain relevant in the present times and in future:

1. Power imbalances within the UN: The composition of the Security Council is the one factor that best epitomises the contradictions between the world of 1945 and that of today. When the UN was created, veto power was given to the Permanent Five who were also the victors of the Second World War as well as constituted the Security Council so as to preserve international peace and security. This has been one of the major factors that have defined the nature of the work that the United Nations does and the way it reacts to crises facing the world. While the Security Council is mandated by the Charter to act on behalf of all Member-States, in most cases the special privileges have been used to advance self-interest. The imbalance in the UN’s architecture and power relations remains one of the central obstacles in its ability to meet contemporary challenges and the expectations of the peoples of this world. Therefore the UN, especially its Security Council, needs to be reformed in order that it can be in a position to address a broad range of challenges that face humanity. The perception that the most powerful have impunity from rules and norms has weakened the edifice of international law developed under the United Nations. Reform would strengthen the Security Council. With broader representation from countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America serving as Permanent Members, the Security Council would draw more credibility and have broader views.

2. Retain the ‘checks and balances’: The drafters of the UN Charter designed a system of checks and balances, as they gave different powers and functions to its different organs. Increasing empowerment of the Security Council at the expense especially of the General Assembly and other organs is undermining the basic structure of the UN. The Security Council has tended to encroach on the competencies of the other principal organs of the UN. It has also increasingly assumed for itself a legislative and treaty-interpreting or amending role. There is no doubt that this approach also weakens multilateralism in the sense that other organs and bodies can lose their specialised mandates to the Security Council. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the sole and legitimate body for the verification of nuclear safeguards agreements and its role must not be undermined or subsumed by the Security Council.

3. Focus on development: There has to be a paradigm shift in the focus of the UN. Prioritising building and maintaining peace was a historical necessity in the mid-forties. The focus now should be on the next level: going into the causes of conflict and suggesting means of redressal. That signifies that the stress should be on development—to see that poverty, illiteracy, food insecurity, diseases are tackled effectively and reduced.

4. More engagement by the rich countries: Many people in the world today still live in abject poverty even at the time when there are enough resources in the world to eliminate it. Whole societies are not on track to meet the Millennium Development Goals. Estimates show that at current rates several countries of Asia and Africa will fail to achieve these goals unless urgent action is taken to support the efforts of the governments towards this end. The rich countries must contribute more to carry out the development work of the UN.

5. Ensure inclusive growth within nations: The United Nations must play an active role in ensuring inclusive growth within nations, and inclusive globalisation across nations. This calls for, in the short-term, a new international initiative to bring structural reform in the world’s financial system with more effective regulation and stronger systems of multilateral consultations and surveillance.

6. Proactive role in Disarmament: Many people in several countries live under the constant threat of random acts of terrorism. The proli-feration of small arms and other weapons continues to undermine peace efforts around the world. There is also concern about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and some states are devising new ones, apparently for actual use. The UN should work proactively on disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. The issue of terrorism too should receive its collective attention.

The author, a journalist-turned-media academician, heads the Dhenkanal campus of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC). He can be contacted at: mrinaliimc@yahoo.in

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.