For all of these obvious reasons, a renewed global multilateralism without the UN’s role isn’t even conceivable. The COVID-19 crisis comes as a caveat that it should be sufficient to usher a new UN moment in the first half of 2021. The means and methods the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. The waning UN performance is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation. We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a prompted measure against the HR violations in Kashmir and Palestine recently manifested by UNs inability to call a COVID-19 resolution soliciting for ceasefires in conflict zones and the co-operative international response to the pandemic.
Needless to say, conflicts and wars are still around, people’s rights are being violated, minorities and vulnerable groups are discriminated against, countries refuse to fulfil agreements and break their promises-but the principles, norms and rules of behaviour agreed in the UN’s Charter. In the current scenario, the Indian Government’s adopted CAA is the worst precedent.All the while, the idea of racial and cultural equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN. In 1945, around one- third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
Preventive diplomacy is another big challenge in terms of human rights and conflict-resolution.Modern diplomacy is currently experiencing fundamental changes at an unprecedented rate, which affect the very character of diplomacy as we know it. These changes also affect aspects of domestic and international politics that were once of no great concern to diplomacy. Obviously today,the challenge United Nations and its partners currently face in conducting preventive diplomacy in a changing political and security landscape. Technical developments, mainly digitization, affect how the work of the diplomat is understood; the number of domestic and international actors that involve the sphere of diplomacy is increasing; the public is more sensitive to foreign policy issues and seeks to influence diplomacy through social media and other platforms; the way exchange between states, as well as the interchange between government and other domestic actors, signs of progress, is influencing diplomacy’s ability to act legitimately and effectively; and finally, the UN diplomats themselves do not necessarily need the same attributes as they previously did.
The UN has also been working to strengthen the world’s financial support in times of crisis including through the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund, which provided $200 million to underfunded crises around the world
Virtually, the UN is not just one organization, but rather it is a system boasting a wide range of specialized agencies whose expertise can be deployed around the world (resources and legal hurdles permitting). It is even host to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, though they operate autonomously. Today, the UN’s challenges are myriad trans- regionally: a volatile environment that often proves deadly for UN forces, restricts peace-building initiatives and keeps the mission on a defensive footing; this is all evident from Africa’s Mali to the South Asian crisis in Kashmir.
The most pressing argument that is held today is that the UN member states must change the system of participation and voting in the UN Security Council. Now the five victors in World War II have permanent seats while a few of the other countries serve two-year terms. All nations ought to be able to play a role in Security Council decisions. Apparently, the 15-member Security Council is by far the most powerful arm of the United Nations in form, yet in substance, it is the club of P5 that is. It can impose sanctions, as it did against Iran over its nuclear program, and authorize military intervention, as it did against Libya in 2011. Critics say it is also the most anachronistic part of the organization. Its five permanent members are the victors of World War II: the United States, Britain, China, France and Russia. The other 10 members are elected for two-year terms, with seats set aside for different regions of the world.
According to Schwartzberg’s proposal, each nation would join one of twelve regional groupings. Such balanced policymaking would give Security Council decisions greater moral authority, and it provides an alternative to the present arrangement where one major power by itself can prevent Security Council action. Yet the argument of revisionist pragmatism discards the theory of regional representation because this could further promote polarization in the UN’s system.We have been witnessing the very promising implementation of UN reforms intended to better connect development work with peacekeeping and security, with an emphasis on preventing conflict.To save the UN’s institutions from an unjust intervention by the US in its affairs is inevitable as has been manifested by the Trump administration’s current attack on the ICC working which is governed by a Negotiated Relationship Agreement. The Security Council can initiate proceedings before the ICC, and refer to the ICC situations– that would rightly come under the Court’s jurisdiction.
The UN has also been working to strengthen the world’s financial support in times of crisis including through the UN’s Central Emergency Response Fund, which provided $200 million to underfunded crises around the world. But the scale of the response still does not match the global need, and greater attention must be given to resolving conflicts and providing peace in the future.Yet undeniably, the common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes among big powers. Make no mistake that the UN’s future credibility much depends on the role it judiciously plays in settling the decade’s old-issues of Kashmir and Palestine in South Asia and in the Mideast respectively. There can be no denying that several Security Council and General Assembly resolutions affirmed that all legislative and administrative measures taken by the occupying powers-India and Israel to respectively alter the character and status of Jerusalem and the Indian occupied Kashmir is all tantamount to be unjust and illegal.
Pragmatically, if we look towards the UN’s horizon: a truly ambitious vision will always be more aspirational than imminently achievable, particularly in the domains of HR, legitimacy and international law. Still, 2021 could mark a new beginning. Even a partial success would help to build a world where the competition takes place within agreed rules, and where cooperation trumps conflict.It is true that the fungus of power politics has spoiled the UN’s system. To address these global challenges the UN today needs a fair will and volition.
Concluded
The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan