United Nations: Success Story or Paper Tiger?
Disclaimer: This article is written based on the opinion of the author and does not in any way reflect the view of the organisation.
“Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet”
- United Nations
One would have to question whether the United Nations (UN) is staying true to its own agenda. As the child of the League of Nations (LON) , the UN was formed to compensate for the failures of its predecessor, namely the occurrence of the Second World War. Ever since the establishment of the United Nations, this intergovernmental body has worked through its various subsidiary bodies in order to achieve its separate goals. However, with the worsening of ongoing issues such as the heightening of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it seems as if the UN is failing its primary mission — that of maintaining world peace.. Having said that, let’s first have a look at the League of Nations and its failures before looking at those of the United Nations.
Failure of the League of Nations
Formed in 1920, the League of Nations was an organisation first proposed by the United States of America following the end of the First World War. The organisation was formed based on the Fourteen Points by the USA’s then President, Woodrow Wilson, to promote world peace and settle disputes among countries so that a second war would not occur. The LON was unable to achieve its objectives, as many disputes followed that greatly undermined its competency in resolving them. Such disputes included the Manchurian crisis, the Abyssinian crisis and the Spanish Civil War which ultimately showcased the ineffectiveness of the LON in dealing with its influential members. This shortcoming of the LON was thus taken advantage of by Hitler’s Germany, resulting in the Second World War. Following the end of the Second World War, the United Nations was formed to supersede the LON in order to maintain world peace.
Like that of the LON, the UN has disappointed many in its inability to resolve disputes, especially within the United Nations Security Council.
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Dating back to 1948, the Israeli-Palestinian is a territorial dispute regarding the region currently controlled by both the State of Israel and the State of Palestine, particularly on the occupation of East Jerusalem and the blockade of the Gaza Strip. The conflict was brought back to the international spotlight with the escalation of violence early May this year. Based on the report by BBC News, the 11-day conflict resulted in the death of more than 250 people.
The UNSC called an emergency meeting on May 10, May 12 and May 16 to intervene in the escalation of the conflict. The former two had been closed without debate and no resolutions were passed after the conclusion of the latter with the United States blocking statements on a ceasefire between the two states. This is not the first time the US has held firm on its support for Israel. Over the years, the US has blocked at least 10 resolutions by the United Nations condemning the illegal settlement of Israel over that of East Jerusalem, through its veto power in the Security Council. Like that of the failures of the LON, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has often been used as a display of the UN’s own members observing a different agenda as that of the UN based on their countries’ policies.
Veto Power, Abstaining and Call to Action
This would not have been the first time vetoes came into play when resolutions were introduced. The Syrian Civil War, ongoing since 2011, has observed both China and Russia pulling in double-vetoes for resolutions to provide aid to Syria. Additionally on the Ukraine Crisis, Russia has warded off resolutions on a referendum in Crimea.
As much as veto power supporters may claim it to be a means of maintaining international stability, the fact that such opinion derives from nations wielding it greatly undermines the credibility of veto power. Whilst it is undeniable that the veto power may theoretically play a role in preventing the passing of substantive resolutions which may not benefit UN member states, it would be rather idealistic to assume that any country wielding its power would not abuse them for national interest.
With so much political intrigue ongoing within the Council, countries would abstain from votes whenever certain topics did not concern that of its nation. This brings in the question of what the UN can do to ensure that resolutions may be passed and implemented to resolve crises occurring today. As follows are a few guidelines on how certain reforms of the UN can minimise the potential abuse of power by superpowers.
- Limiting the veto power
According to an article on the veto published by the Security Council Report in 2020, a veto has been used 293 times since 1946. Whilst France has pledged against the misuse of veto, other permanent members have yet to undertake such resolutions.
2. Improvement in resources required for peacebuilding
This includes ensuring that there is sufficient funds and staff to ensure that whenever an international crisis is identified, early stages of research and analysis can be undergone to better understand the situation. Communication lines across the involved parties, nations and bodies have to be established properly so that aggression can be reduced at the minimum.
Closing thoughts
Whilst the UN has celebrated various successes reforming the world through its subsidiary organs, one would have to question whether the UN is able to hold out its weight in some of its more politicized bodies, like the Security Council. As much as one could heavily criticize the “incompetence of the UN”, the reality is that the UN remains as an advisory body and intermediator to that of other nations. The choice of adopting the UN’s resolutions and policies relies heavily on that of the country and its country’s policies. Without the cooperation of its members, the efforts of the UN is rather futile. Hence, it becomes a question of how a collaborative effort by its member states can allow the UN to play its role, rather than becoming yet another artefact for display in the museum of failed international cooperation, like that of its predecessor.
[Written by Evelyn Chen Siaw Yin]
