Daily Times

Another year, another session. The agenda this time round ranged from human rights to social equality and security concerns but, while the speeches were top-notch as always, the sessions did not go so far as to generate consensus over tangible actions. The delegates that had converged on Manhattan for the 69th regular session of the United Nations (UN) will be leaving the Big Apple for their own homelands soon. As the biggest diplomatic soiree on the planet comes to a close today, the question we should be asking ourselves right now is: does the UN still belong in our world?
The answer of course, is that it depends. For some, the UN represents all of the noble stuff when you let liberal-pacifist ideas run wild. For others, it is nothing more than an elitist club, with membership fees, meetings and consequent perks. The only common strand in the two dissenting camps is that the UN has never been fully synchronised with the world it is grounded in. It is either too slow to act and hence becomes redundant or it envisions futuristic resolutions that are far ahead of the times.
The UN was dreamt up after civilised Europe had been left browbeaten in the wake of the horrors of the Second World War. Learning from the ineffectiveness of its predecessor, the short-lived League of Nations, the new organisation was given a more ambitious mandate, including international peace and security, promotion of human rights, social and economic development, protection of the environment and providing humanitarian aid in times of crises. Since then, the UN has taken on many roles through its various agencies. It now has dedicated branches concerned with the protection of cultural heritage, providing pre- and post-natal healthcare to females in developing countries and reducing truancy rates in schools. It employs the very best of what the world has to offer in terms of personnel and counts within its ranks visionary thinkers and Nobel laureates.
From a political perspective, the UN seems stuck in a time capsule of sorts that was buried and forgotten when the world was a very different place. The victors of the Second World War, especially the US, created an interdependent system that ensured the perpetuation of their dominance through intricate global links. However, in an interesting turn of events, the UN also became the prime patron for providing legitimacy to newly born, postcolonial nations as well. Moreover, the emergence of the Cold War between the former USSR and the US also put the organisation in an inimitable place. As a result, the UN came to be recognised as the international hub for conducting the affairs of diplomacy. The UN was and still is the medium of choice when leaders of member states desire to communicate important messages to the world and beyond.
While enjoying prominence since its early days, the UN has seen its fair share of trouble as well. Through delayed action (or even inaction) in times of crises like the ones in Rwanda and the Balkans, the UN has drawn sharp criticism even from some of its ardent supporters. But with one foot firmly planted in the past and the other mid-stride towards the future, it is no wonder that the UN has been found wanting in the present. One example of this is the UN Charter itself that, while trying to reconcile the diametrically opposed, just ends up being full of inherent contradictions. For instance, the notion of humanitarian intervention, firmly rooted in the UN Charter, tends to counteract another one of the UN’s celebrated ideals, that of territorial integrity. Additionally, while the UN may pass visionary resolutions regarding international justice and civil, human and socio-political rights, it does not possess a framework for implementation and, furthermore, remains dependent on its member states because of jurisdiction issues.
The organisational structure of the UN does not help its cause much either. On the one hand, the General Assembly, which hollers of equality and participation, lacks any decisive power and often becomes a mouthpiece for all 193 members to trump each other in cloaking bellicose semantics in idyllic diplomatic garb. On the other, the Security Council, with its permanent, veto-enabled members, is still trapped in the power politics of the post-war and Cold War days, and has failed to pay heed to calls for genuine structural reform through the integration of emerging powerful states like Brazil and Germany. It is true that the secretary general of the UN is an important and visible person but the jurisdiction of the bearer of this particular office reaches no further than “condemning” certain actions and “showing concern” over others.
The truth of the matter is that the UN will only ever have as much power as we bestow upon it. Even with its transcending nature, it is composed of self-centred nation-states that seek to maximise their own interests on a priority basis. Consequently, crippling transnational issues like climate change generate little concern. There is also the important issue of funding and, with paltry contributions from members, the UN lacks the monetary support required for a more robust implementation of its charter. Furthermore, critics blame the UN for perpetuating old power structures that might not be relevant any more and there is some truth to that assertion. However, even with the US openly laying claim to the UN as rightfully theirs, the world has changed too much. The UN is rapidly losing legitimacy to a trifecta of contesting entities: transformative regional blocs and economic unions, resurgent nation-states and unrestrained non-state actors.
But no matter what you think of the UN’s unique position, the fact remains that it is the only game in town where the ones not playing risk being ostracised. So far, for better or for worse, we as political beings have been unable to imagine a working alternative to the UN. That might very well be because the UN has continuously been evolving to take on new roles and manages to muddle through new challenges. Additionally, it has been able to fulfil one of the most important purposes for its establishment: keeping the peace but only up to a degree of course. The fact remains that in an insecure world chockfull of advanced nuclear, biological and tactical weapons, the UN has prevented the outbreak of World War III. But with the situation in the Middle East, Africa and Eastern Europe rapidly spiralling out of control, that might just be about to change.

The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations