In medias res: maybe one of the biggest problems of the UN is anchored in its structure and legitimacy, which is a hostage of national interests of the Security Council (SC) Members and it will not change until every member state will receive a vote with the same value.
As a former auditor, I was used to analyzing the efficiency of organizations based on processes and selected case studies. Taking the example of the Iraq wars: Iraq became a collateral of conflicting US-Russian agendas in the Middle-East[1] and of the Syrian “spillover effect”. Efforts were made to avoid an open US-Russian military clash, but the inherited structural weakness of the SC fueled the proxy war in Iraq.[2] An important reason is that the war became a regional and multinational conflict, has grown out of the horizon of the UN, and UN diplomacy was unable to deal with those challenges. The world has changed – but not the UN. This is a problem of an organization that was unable to adapt to the dynamic of real politics. According to Autessere[3]
But in fact, UN peacekeepers too often fail to meet their most basic objectives. On many deployments, they end up watching helplessly while war rages.
Another dazzling example of an obvious failure of the UN (and the SC) was the refusal to grant expedited refugee status to the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) of minorities. This was for the UN a convenient “legal fig-leaf” for the ongoing shame. Thus, at the same time, both the US and Russia had the chance to keep the status quo and not to openly confront the issue. UN´s “religion-blind” aid policy is a shortcoming, a process failure, and cannot be undone. It ignores religious minorities due to its norms and the possible “violation of humanitarian principles” and results in paradoxical developments, such as the settlement of families of former ISIS fighters in the Christian villages of northern Iraq.[4]
Internal inefficiency and lack of communication within the UN are well described by the fact that former Secretary-General (SG) Ban-Ki Moon (and his successor António Guterres) prepared more than 30 “Secretary-General´s Reports” to the SC with detailed intelligence about “Yazidi, Christian and Shabak minorities, who fled for fear of genocide.”[5] but no resolution included a declaration that ISIS has been committing genocide and had no consequent results. This is a joint failure of SG and SC to raise the attention and act against the genocide.
UN´s former Undersecretary-General of the Office of Internal Oversight Services[6] summarized referring to Sec-Gen. Ban Ki-Moon:
There is no transparency, there is a lack of accountability. Rather than supporting the internal oversight which is the sign of strong leadership and good governance, you have strived to control it which is to undermine its position. I do not see any signs of reform in the Organization.
To evaluate the leadership of SG Guterres is too early. The former UNHCR High Commissioner might pay more attention to the topic.
The excessive use of veto right is an inherited institutional weakness of the SC. Russia had always a vital interest in stabilizing the Middle-East as her “backyard”. As a logical consequence, Russia vetoed every western motivated UNSC draft resolution on Syria since 2011, on the whole, 12 times[7]. It seems not realistic that any of the permanent members would ever renounce its veto right. A closed circle.
And while the other permanent members were involved in the power play, China successfully “infiltrated” the Iraq energy market. 60% of the electricity in Baghdad is produced by Chinese companies.[8] For reconstruction and economic development, energy is a key factor, and China has already manifested positions for the post-war period.
Finally, funding is the main concern. Financial contributions and political influence in the UN are diverging. Germany donated almost one-third of the total UNAMI budget and twice the amount of the USA. Together with Japan, it pays more to the UN budget than any permanent member except the USA, but is not on par with permanent members and have little to say.[9]
The reasons why and since when the UN lost path are various. After all, one tends to give a frustrated “yes” as an answer to T.G. Weiss´s provocative question “Would the World Be Better Without the UN?”[10] However, the recent Noble prize nomination for WFP – also one of the largest logistic enterprises of the world (with 100 airplanes, 6,000 trucks, over 50 ships) shows that the UN and most of its agencies are an essential part of our world order. As Weiss formulates[11]
If the UN did not exist, we would have to invent it.
[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Plans for Redrawing the Middle East: The Project for a “New Middle East” Global Research, November 18, 2006, https://www.globalresearch.ca/plans-for-redrawing-the-middle-east-the-project-for-a-new-middle-east/3882
[2] A visible exception was the downing of a Russian fighter jet by the Turkish air defense on the Syria-Turkey border on November 24th, 2015. (Author)
[3] Autesserre, Séverine. “The Crisis of Peacekeeping: Why the UN Can’t End Wars.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 101–116. EBSCOhost.
[4] Art. 44 Iraqi Constitution Article 44, 2nd states that: “No Iraqi may be exiled, displaced, or deprived of returning to the homeland”. WIPO “Iraq Constitution” http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=230001 (on November 11, 2018)
[5] United Nations, Security Council, “First report of the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 2169 (2014)” S/2014/774, October 31, 2014, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7b65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7d/s_2014_774.pdf
[6] Colum Lynch, “Departing U.N. official calls Ban’s leadership ‘deplorable’ in 50-page memo“ Washington Post, July 20, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/19/AR2010071904734.html
[7] RTÉ News, “Russia’s 12 UN vetoes on Syria” April 11, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2018/0411/953637-russia-syria-un-veto/
[8] Richard Wachman, “China pushes for bigger role in Iraqi reconstruction”, Arab News, November 12, 2018, http://www.arabnews.com/node/1257811/business-economy
[9] Germany condemned the 2003 US-invasion in Iraq and fell out of favor with the US as a candidate for a permanent seat.
[10] Weiss, Thomas G. “Would the World Be Better without the UN?” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 2, Summer 2017, pp. 29–38. EBSCOhost.
[11] “Ban Ki moon’s Thankless Position,” New York Times, 1June 2016.
Gabor,
I find myself in reluctant agreement with you final quote. The UN, in my view, is deeply flawed, but I still believe that the world is better off because of its existence. Occasionally, a situation arises where the nation-states are able to reach a consensus, though I also agree with your point that the veto has been used far too often. This was especially the case during the Cold War, but it continues to the present day among the five permanent members.
What is often overlooked about the UN, however, is that a number of its so-called specialized agencies, e.g., WHO, FAO, WFP, etc., play a very important role in providing technical expertise, policy guidance, and actual assistance to developing countries. The politics at the UN headquarters in NYC may be contentious and often stalemated, but the many UN specialized agencies carry on quietly with their work.
–Professor Wallerstein