To reflect and respect changes in global order after its inception, long awaited reforms in UN Security Council is need of the hour because world has changed a lot post World War II
By Ramzy Baroud
There is a rational explanation as to why India and Brazil, two countries with vast populations and large and growing economies, are not permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC).
The council — made up of five permanent and 10 rotating members — was designed to reflect a world order that was born from the horrific violence of World War II. It was as simple as this: Those who emerged on the side of the victors were granted permanent membership and a veto power that would allow a single country to defy the will of the entire international community. This unfair system, which has perpetually weakened the moral foundation of the UN, remains in effect to this day.
The 73rd session of the UN General Assembly in New York reflected both the impotence of the UN’s ability as a global platform to address pressing problems, and also the chaotic political scene resulting from the organization’s lack of unity. The misuse of the veto, the lack of accountability and the unfair representation at the UNSC — for example, not a single African or Latin American country is a permanent member — have emasculated an organization that is meant, at least on paper, to uphold international law and achieve peace and global security.
While Richard Falk, the former UN Special Rapporteur, advocates the “need for a stronger UN,” he argues that “from the perspective of current geopolitical trends, (the UN) seems to have declined almost to the vanishing point with respect to overarching challenges that states acting on their own cannot hope to overcome.”
Some of these problems are interconnected and cannot be redeemed through short-term or provisional solutions. For instance, climate change often leads to food shortages and hunger, which, in turn, contribute to the rising levels of migration and, consequently, to racism and violence.
Late last year, the UN’s World Food Program (WFP) reported that global hunger is, in fact, increasing, despite all attempts to curb it and to, ultimately, achieve the declared goal of “zero hunger.” According to the WFP, 815 million people suffered from hunger in 2016 — an increase of nearly 40 million from the previous year. The UN body called the latest figure an “indictment on humanity.”
The failing fight against climate change is another such indictment on humanity. The Paris Agreement of 2016 was a rare shining moment for the UN, as leaders from 195 countries consented to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions through the lowering of their reliance on fossil fuels. The excitement, however, soon died out. In June 2017, the US government pulled out of the global accord, putting the world once more in peril of global warming, with its devastating impact on humanity. This decision by the Trump administration exemplifies the foundational problem within the UN; where one country can dominate or derail the whole international agenda, rendering the UN practically irrelevant.
Interestingly, the UN was established in 1945 to replace a body that, too, was rendered irrelevant and ineffective: The League of Nations. But if the League of Nations lost its credibility because of its inability to prevent war, why has the UN survived all these years?
Perhaps, then, the UN was never established to tackle the problems of war or global security in the first place, but rather to reflect the new power paradigm that caters to those most invested in the existence of the organization in its current form. As soon as the UN was established, the US and its allies rose to dominate the global agenda.
As experience has shown, the US is committed to the UN when the international organization serves the US agenda, but is uncommitted whenever the organization fails to meet Washington’s expectations. For example, former President George W. Bush repeatedly censured the UN for failing to support his unlawful war efforts against Iraq. In a speech before the General Assembly, in 2002, Bush asked: “Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding or will it be irrelevant?”
“The purpose of its founding” here, of course, refers to the US agenda that has remained a top UN priority for decades. US ambassadors to the UN have worked ceaselessly to undermine various UN institutions that refuse to toe the American line. The current incumbent, Nikki Haley, is far more aggressive than her predecessors, as her antagonistic language and undiplomatic tactics — especially in the context of the illegal Israeli occupation and apartheid in Palestine — further highlight the deteriorating relationship between Washington and the UN.
Indeed, the UN is not a monolithic institution. It is a supranational body that simply reflects the nature of global power. After World War II, the UN became divided around political and ideological lines as a result of the Cold War. At the end of the Cold War era, in the early 1990s, the UN became an American tool reflecting the US quest for global domination.
Starting from 2003, the UN has entered a new era, in which the US is no longer the only hegemonic power; the rise of China and Russia as economic hubs and military actors, in addition to the rise of regional and economic blocs elsewhere, is causing a greater and growing challenge to the US at the UNSC and various other UN institutions. Although the General Assembly remains largely impotent, it is still able to, occasionally, challenge the dominance of great powers through its support of other UN bodies, such as UNESCO, the International Court of Justice, the World Health Organization and so on.
The world is vastly changing, yet the UN continues its operations based on an archaic and faulty formula that crowned the winners of World War II as the world’s leaders. There can be no hope for the UN if it continues to operate on the basis of such erroneous assumptions, and it should not take another global war for the UN to be reformed to reflect this new and irreversible reality.