Is UN Fit for Purpose in 2022?
Embedded Files
With millions of refugees, the country devastated by bombing and thousands of deaths, what did United Nations do to prevent the Ukraine-Russia war?
In light of the current situation in the heart of Europe, there are pertinent questions raised on the role of the United Nations. Is United Nations fit for its purpose in the 21st Century?
All 22 years of the 21st Century have passed with many disastrous wars. Starting with Afghanistan, then Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine – Russia War.
These wars have changed modern history for the worst. The wounds are so deep that they will take centuries to heal if peace settles today. But, then, there is an ongoing threat of war in the South China Sea, North Korea, India – China, Sudan and other places.
There is a perpetual Israel – Palestine conflict in the Middle East, and there is no resolution.
The United Nations Organisation (UNO) was established in 1945 in the aftermath of World War II to serve as a permanent global body for world peace and security. However, over time, it has failed to live up to its original purpose for many reasons.
“
Over time, UN has failed to live up to its original purpose ....
Like many others, UNO has not been able to engage in dialogue with all the countries it represents. This ineffectiveness was evident in the case of Syria, as the UN did little to prevent a disastrous war that took thousands of lives and caused widespread suffering among civilians.
There are several reasons for this, including political differences, disagreements between member countries, and conflicts of interest.
Conflict of Interest in UN Security Council
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the main body responsible for maintaining international peace and security. Its membership comprises 15 countries, five of which are permanent members with veto power (the US, UK, France, Russia, and China), and 10 of which the General Assembly elects for two-year terms.
In addition, five non-permanent members can also expand the Council to include new countries with a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly.
There has been much debate about whether or not it is appropriate for some permanent members, particularly those with economic interests in many nations and regions, to maintain their positions on the Security Council.
These countries have been accused of using their power in the Council to push their economic interests. This bias and imbalance of power have led to claims that the UN Security Council is a body that is not truly representative of all nations.
“
... bias and imbalance of power have led to claims that the UN Security Council is a body that is not truly representative of all nations.
Some have argued for a reform of the Security Council's membership, either by removing some or all of the permanent members or by expanding the number of seats to include more countries to create a better balance between regional and world interests.
While some believe that reform is unnecessary, given the UN's enormous potential as an international peacekeeper, others feel that conflict of interest still exists and could be significantly reduced with changes to its membership.
One possible reason is that some member states prioritized their interests over international peace. For example, the US was more concerned about securing its oil supply in the region than protecting Iraqi civilians and preventing bloodshed.
Additionally, some countries may have been reluctant to intervene in the war due to the fear of reprisals from Iraq or other countries.
Another reason why the UN failed to prevent the Iraq war was that it did not have adequate enforcement mechanisms in place. The UN Security Council is responsible for authorizing military force, but permanent members often veto its decisions, such as the US.
Additionally, the UN lacks its military power and must rely on member states to provide troops. This dependency can often lead to delays in deployment or a lack of resources.
Ultimately, the UN was unable to prevent the Iraq war due to political differences and disagreements between member countries and conflicts of interest. However, it is still an important organization that can play a role in preventing and resolving future conflicts.
As you can see, there are many complex factors involved in the failure of the UN to prevent the Iraq war. While there may never be a definitive answer, some potential solutions include strengthening enforcement mechanisms and encouraging greater cooperation between member states.
It is also important to remember that the UN plays a vital role in many other areas of international conflicts, such as humanitarian aid and peacekeeping operations. In short, it is a crucial organization that we cannot afford to abandon.
Veto Power
One of the UN's most important powers is its authority to cast vetoes on resolutions by member states. This "veto power" has been a highly controversial issue since the UN's inception, with many arguing that it undermines democratic decision-making and weakens its legitimacy as an international arbiter.
“
VETO Power undermines democratic decision-making and weakens legitimacy of UN as an international arbiter.
The veto power is a power that each of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) possess. It allows these permanent members to block any "substantive" UN resolution.
A permanent member's veto prevents the passage of a resolution, thus retaining the power to block approval of any UN decision.
The veto was first used in 1946 by the Soviet Union to prevent the adoption of a resolution to condemn it for aggression against Iran. Since then, it has been used countless times by all five permanent members.
As of 2020, China has used its veto power more than any other country, 126 times. The United States has used its veto power 108 times, Russia has used it 82 times, France has used it 25 times, and the United Kingdom has used it 8 times.
For a resolution to be passed in the UN, all five permanent members must agree; if one vetoes the resolution, it cannot be passed.
Many economists and political scientists argue that the current system of veto power at the UN distorts democratic decision-making.
They claim that states that wield significant influence within multilateral institutions are more likely to use their positions to pursue narrow national interests rather than acting in service of global welfare.
Furthermore, they argue that the veto power disproportionately benefits permanent members of the UN Security Council, who are not democratically elected and do not have to answer to domestic constituencies.
Supporters of the veto power system argue that it is essential for maintaining international peace and security. They claim that any decisions made by the UN must be consensus-based to be effective and that the veto power ensures that no single state can unilaterally impose its will on the rest of the world.
Furthermore, they maintain that the current system provides a necessary check on the UN's authority, preventing it from taking actions that could potentially lead to global conflict.
The debate over the role of the veto power is likely to continue as the UN seeks to address some of the world's most pressing challenges.
Finally, if there is a report card, the UN has been unable to effectively tackle global issues such as wars, climate change, poverty, and disease due to its lack of power.
This failure is because the UN relies solely on member states to provide the necessary resources and support to make progress on these issues.
As a result, the UN is not fit for its purpose in its current form. To regain its relevance and founding motive, the UN must take steps to address these issues and prove that it is still an effective body for global peace and security. Only then will it be able to regain the trust and support of the international community.
To Comment: connect@expertx.org
Support Us - It's advertisement free journalism, unbiased, providing high quality researched contents.
Google Sites
Report abuse