How the UN became "UN-able to do anything"
How the UN became "UN-able to do anything"
Will the global power competition destroy the United Nations?
If we stroll around the internet for a while and search for “the United Nations”, we will certainly come across opinions stating that the UN today stands for “UN-able to do anything”. This general feeling is the result of the “unableness” of the United Nations to address the crises and conflicts that are taking place in today’s world, with a primary focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also reflecting the inability of the organization to address the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Violent death and suffering of millions of people worldwide today, but also during the two bloodiest wars that humanity has ever seen, have shown us how desperately we need a mechanism to stop us from descending into such chaotic events again, to stop us from unleashing the dogs of war, those which are dormant within every one us. That mechanism was called first “The League of Nations” and later “ The United Nations”.
So why do we need that mechanism and do we have it today? Can the UN ensure world peace or will it end up like its predecessor, in the back pages of history? These and many other questions I will try to answer in this post.
The Creation of the “Peace Mechanism”
We have entered into the 21st century with the hope of never reliving again the events that have taken place in the dystopian reality of the 20th century. The events of the 20th century have shown us the extent to which humanity can descend into the depths of hell itself.
“If the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.” -Fedor Dostoevsky
The League of Nations was created with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, right after the devastating war which claimed 20 million lives. The intent was to create a forum for policy discussions and negotiations, one which would serve as the mechanism to stop the world and Europe from descending again into conflict. However, the organization had one fundamental flaw, and that was the fact that its grand architect, the United States with Woodrow Wilson as its president, was not a member of the League.
Ultimately, there were three events which have led to the dissolution of the League of Nations. First, the league was unable to address Japan’s military invasion of Manchuria (present-day Northeast China), second it was unable to address the lack of obedience of Germany, which started to militarize itself once again, and finally, it failed to stop Italy from occupying Ethiopia. These three events were the precursor of the Second World War and the death sentence of the League of Nations.
It was these three events that have led to the creation of the Axis powers on the one side, and Allied forces on the other, which has partitioned the world into two blocs and has led to the most devastating war in the history of humanity.
After the end of WW2, from the ashes of the League, a new organization emerged, the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet Union, and China — and by a majority of the other 46 nations.
“The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell”
-Dag Hammarskjöld, Second UN Secretary General
The world was divided by the victors of the Second World War, and that division is reflected in the most important body of the UN, the United Nations Security Council. The UNSC has five permanent members with veto power: China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States; and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly.
Over the years, the UN has shown that it is capable of resolving issues and disputes between some smaller states or between the great powers and small states. Its big flaw was that it was seldom capable of resolving major conflicts between the great powers. The structure of the UN shows that the organization was created according to the division of the world in 1945, which is no longer the case today. Just for reference, at the time of the creation of the UN, it had 51 founding members whereas today it has 193 member states and two non-member observer states- the Holy See and Palestine. To put it in simple terms, its structure is outdated and is in desperate need of reform, both horizontal and vertical.
Also, India is not a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and it will shortly become (if it isn’t already) the most populous country in the world, with a population that is equivalent to 17.76% of the total world population. There have been already talks about giving India a seat among the powerful nations, but it is still a question if this will happen anytime soon.
Is this the End of the UN?
Let’s be frank about something, the current disappointment with the UN stems from the disillusioned perception of the organization, rather than its inability to achieve world peace and order. Why do I say that? Well, the UN doesn’t have the sovereignty and the power to enforce international law and order, only the nation-states that comprise the UN and other international organizations do. It is the nation-states that have governments, judicial systems, and police and army to enforce those laws and preserve peace and order. There is no such thing as the UN police force or the UN army (UN peacekeepers are not the UN army). The UN is not a super-state, therefore it can’t enforce international law and ensure global peace and order.
Max Weber describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory. This means that the state (and only state) has the power to use force to achieve peace and order within its borders. So, in short, the absence of sovereignty and order usually means that we have an anarchy-a state of disorder due to the absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Now, the international arena is anarchical by its own very nature. There is no higher authority that can ensure peace and order in the international arena if there are multiple great powers that are competing against each other. The UN is certainly not an authority in this respect.
The time when the UN was created reflects a bipolar period when we had two great powers, the United States (along with its allies) on one side and the Soviet Union on the other. After the Cold War ended, from the end of the 1980s up until the end of the 2000s or early 2010s (depending on who you ask), we had a unipolar moment, where the US was the sole great power in the international arena. That period is over and we have now great powers joining again the United States, primarily China, India, and Russia. What we see today is the emergence of the multipolar world. One interesting characteristic of the multipolar world order is that states enter into competition with each other, which can be both peaceful and devastating at times.
Now, there is one interesting similarity between the period preceding the fall of the League of Nations and today- we had a multipolar world. The United Nations did not replace Global Power Politics, it has only concealed it, and after the end of the bipolar and unipolar world order, we have again entered into a period of great power competition. Does this mean the end of the UN and other international organizations?
Well, International Organizations have changed throughout history- some of them have been destroyed, while other have been created. We can see that the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have both entered into a critical period, mostly as a result of the political dynamic that stems from the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The crisis is the result of the perception of some states, who see these two organizations not as a forum to achieve common ground and bring different regions and nation-states closer together, but as the tool that has been used by other countries to push their agendas. These organizations have been widely misused in the pursuit of great power politics and are facing now an existential crisis- the very same crisis which the League of Nations has faced, before its dissolution.
On the other side, we can see organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which have gained more prominence and power over the last 20 years. So, it is hard to foretell the destiny of the United Nations. It would be a pity for an organization such as the UN, which has such a legacy and presence in the world, to be dissolved. The UN has the potential to be a forum for peace and order and its existence is certainly necessary if we wish to achieve such ideals in the future. However, that outcome does not depend on the UN and its specialized agencies, but only upon those factors which give the UN its power- modern nation-states and great powers.
How this great power competition will progress and ultimately end is hard to tell, but the hope of global peace and order still exists. History does not repeat itself, but it definitively rhimes and for the sake of the whole of humanity, let’s hope that we have all learned our lessons and won’t have to go through great power wars before we realize the madness behind such power dynamics. The future of the UN and other international organizations will largely depend upon the level of success that will be achieved in the periods of negotiation, after the end of the ongoing global conflicts.