Hira Bahadur Thapa

In its history of three quarters of a century, the United Nations (UN) has seen many ups and downs. Commentators hold diverse opinions regarding the UN’s achievements. Heads of State from its Member States would have assembled in New York to meet in person and approve the Declaration marking the global body’s 75th anniversary, were it not for the pandemic.
World leaders have been participating in general debate through videoconferencing, the first time in the UN’s records.
The birth of the UN was precipitated by two World Wars. Those crises brought immense destruction to human lives and materials. Those horrific events induced the world leaders to establish an organisation to prevent the possible future wars. They also pinned hopes on the UN to promote economic and social development.

Mixed success
So far, the UN has got mixed success. Some criticise it for its poor performance in maintaining peace and security. Seen against its inability to restore peace in Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Iraq the above criticism is not unfounded.
But the UN is the only organisation which ensures meaningful role for each of its 193 Member States. They are all represented in the General Assembly. All of them enjoy equal rights irrespective of the region, population, military and economic strength. It is the beacon of hope for a peaceful world.
In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, the former US first lady, “The UN is our greatest hope for future. Alone we cannot keep the peace of the world, but in cooperation with others, we have to achieve this much longed-for security”. Her comment is still relevant.
In this regard the, the UN Secretary-General adds that the values embedded in the UN Charter have prevented “the scourge of a Third World War many had feared”.
The UN has been a leading provider of humanitarian aid. It maintains peacekeeping operations in many unstable areas and has assisted in keeping peace. Some $6.5 billion out of the UN’s annual $9.5 billion budget is allocated for peacekeeping activities.
The UN’s troubled history is marked by its inability to end the protracted wars in many countries. Disappointedly, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nearly as old as the organisation itself. The chances of resolving this conflict look slim against the background of new political dynamics sweeping the Middle East.
Many argue that the UN’s basic structure is to blame for its dismal records in securing peace globally. The diamond jubilee of the UN is muted by calamity and conflict. Whatever accomplishments it may have had in saving lives from humanitarian disaster or in facilitating economic and social development of mankind, they seem pale in comparison to its achievement in international peace and security.
The UN can hardly avert conflicts peacefully unless its structure is rebranded. As per its Charter, the UN General Assembly is toothless, except in exercising control over its budget. The real power lies in the 15-member Security Council, which is empowered to impose economic sanctions. This body can use force to secure peace being authorised by a necessary resolution.
This is why the issue of reforming the UN rests on the restructuring of the Security Council in which five permanent members are conspicuous by wielding veto powers. Years of deliberations on the UN reforms have not yielded the desired result. An anomaly exists since its establishment in 1945, when the five Allied Victors of World War II occupied the permanent seats. Using this privilege, the P-5 can block any action in the Security Council they deem to be at odd with their core national interests.
The composition of the Security Council represents the power structure that prevailed 75 years ago. It was shaped by the geopolitical ideals of the leaders who were dominant during the UN’s founding. In 1945 the P-5 accounted for 10 per cent of Member States and over 50 per cent of world’s population. At present, they represent just 3 per cent of Member States and 26 per cent of world’s population.
Region-wise also the composition of the Security Council is not representative because the Western Europe, Other Group and Eastern Europe hold 47 per cent of the seats with 17.1 per cent of the global population. The seats seem to be Eurocentric.
The 75th anniversary Declaration includes a commitment to “instill a new life in the discussions on the reform of the Security Council” but sadly, when it comes to messing with the core power structure of the organization, vested interests make change almost impossible. This is indeed a pity.
In 1945, the then US President Harry Truman praised the 50 founding countries for setting aside their differences “in one unshakeable unity of determination-- to find a way to end wars”.
But at present, “the UN has become weaker than it should be” as opined by Ireland’s former President Marry Robinson. The UN is forced to reflect the preferences of their major members, not least the US. America shares the largest financial burden of the UN providing $10 billion annually. Even among P-5, it seeks to behave as if it were more than equal.

Diplomatic twilight
Judged against the US’s withdrawals from the World Health Organisation, Paris Climate Agreement and Human Rights Council, UN officials find themselves in a diplomatic twilight zone, stuck between the Trump administration’s view of reality and that of the world where everyone else resides. Growing tensions between the US and China do not augur well for the beleaguered UN.
Despite grumblings about the world body’s shortcomings, there is no alternative to multilateralism. The world leaders have renewed their vows to reinvigorate it and justifiably our Prime Minister has joined them.
Over the years, more than one million people have taken part in more than 70 peacekeeping missions. Nepal prides itself on being one of the largest contributors to them since the 1950s. The UN is certainly not without value. It provides a useful venue for governments to talk, be it to avert or calm a crisis. Multilateralism needs reinvigoration, but not abandonment.

(Thapa is a former foreign policy advisor to the Prime Minister from 2008 to 09. thapahira17@gmail.com)