The UN at 63: Is it still relevant?

The facade and flags of the UN building in NYC, courtesy of Ashitakka/flickr

The United Nations headquarters building in New York City

At the 63rd annual UN General Assembly session, the major players all spoke, but does anybody care about what they said? If anybody read the news last week, they would be led to believe that the answer is no.

By Joel Hainsfurther for Diplomatic Courier

On 16 September, the incoming President of the United Nations Miguel dEscoto Brockmann of Nicaragua opened the 63rd annual Session of the UN General Assembly amidst little interest from the media about the world's biggest yearly gathering. It surprised few that Brockmann's speech discussed the importance of strengthening the power of the UN General Assembly. "The central and overarching objective of this sixty-third session of the General Assembly will be to democratize our United Nations," said Brockmann. The incoming president criticized the foreign policy of the Bush administration, saying that no state possessed the ability to unilaterally label another state a sponsor of terrorism. He noted that this held especially true for states launching unilateral wars of aggression against nations that they regarded as state sponsors of terrorism, which he deemed the worst kind of terrorism.

One week later, on Tuesday, 23 September, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon opened the general debate portion of the 63rd Session by remarking on the importance of global leadership and the looming economic and development crisis.

Most of the highlights from the annual meeting, which concludes today, occurred during the first days when the world's leaders took the floor at the General Assembly to address the international community. Their speeches contained nothing new; they were, rather, a compilation of their "greatest hits."

President Bush spoke on Tuesday, 23 September stressing the importance of fighting the threats of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by rogue regimes. "The nations of this body must stand united in the fight against terror. We must continue working to deny the terrorists refuge in anywhere in the world, including ungoverned spaces. We must remain vigilant against proliferation by fully implementing the terms of Security Council Resolution 1540, and enforcing sanctions against North Korea and Iran. We must not relent until out people are safe from this threat to civilization," declared Bush.

Later that afternoon, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran accosted the General Assembly. Ahmadinejad declared that the "American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road, and its next rulers must limit their interference to their own borders. Today, the thought of hegemony quickly becomes a demerit." He added that the "Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse." Ahmadinejad reaffirmed the position of Iran that its nuclear program exists solely for peaceful civilian purposes.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced that France respects Irans right to maintain a peaceful nuclear energy program but that it would not approve of a nuclear-armed Iran or a regime that threatens the demise of the state of Israel.

The following morning President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan discussed the importance of continuing to combat terrorism. "Undoubtedly, terrorism will not go away until we dismantle the elaborate institutional support terrorists enjoy in the region and eliminate their secure sanctuaries." That afternoon, President Demetris Christofias of the Republic of Cyprus addressed the assembly about the ongoing efforts to negotiate a peace agreement with the Turkish-Cypriots in order to unite the island of Cyprus.

On Thursday morning President Jalal Talabani of Iraq spoke about security issues in his country and called on all nations to increase their diplomatic presence in Iraq. On Saturday afternoon, Mr. Pak Kil Yon - the Vice Minister for foreign affairs of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK) - accused the United States of being the worst perpetrator of human rights violations in the world. He also asserted that the United States' insistence on unilateral inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities amounted to an attempt to violate the country's sovereignty.

And so it went; the major players all spoke. Yet, all of this begs the question; does anybody care about what they said? If anybody read the news last week, they would be led to believe that the answer is no. The 63rd Session of the General Assembly received relatively little news coverage and most people probably do not even know that the UN General Assembly was in session. Instead, Americans and others around the world turned their attention towards the first presidential debate and Congress' attempt to save the financial industry and the economy. Would attention still be diverted, however, if those stories were not the news of the day or do people simply not care about the UN anymore?

In the past several years the United Nations has experienced a sort of an identity crisis. Amidst scandals such as oil for food and sexual misconduct perpetrated by UN Peacekeepers, the world's organization increasingly struggles with growing criticism.

The UN's critics call the organization an irrelevant institution that fails to accomplish anything meaningful; they call it out of date, and believe that it serves a world that no longer exists.

When the UN was established 63 years ago, it reflected the realities of a world shattered by WWII. The post Cold War unipolar world order differs greatly from the political environment that existed after WWII. The terrorist attacks on 11 September brought about a fundamental change in the nature of American primacy; acting as the world's hegemonic power, the United States relied on unilateralism, military force, and preventive war instead of traditional diplomatic tools in its efforts to reshape the world according to its vision.

After WWII, the "winners" established the UN and used it to rebuild the Axis Powers into liberal democratic allies. Through this forum these allies worked together to contain the communist ideology of the Soviets and other communist regimes. In today's world, American primacy makes the UN irrelevant. A growing ideological divide between western liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes further undermines the organization's ability to make any substantive progress in regards to pressing international issues. With 192 nations represented at the UN - many of them being a part of other alliances and all looking out for their own national interests - reaching a consensus seems an impossible.

The world today is not the world of 1945 and the institutions of 1945 do not reflect the state of the world today. Nowhere is that better reflected than in the most coveted UN Security Council. Five nations - the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China - sit permanently on the UNSC and have the power to veto any resolution that comes to a vote. Other members can take turns occupying the additional ten rotating seats on the UNSC. While many member nations have sought to reform the Security Council, they have failed to establish a consensus about how to reform it.

The UNSC, which more often than not finds itself deeply paralyzed and divided across ideological lines, cannot reach a consensus on the majority of the issues. If the UNSC usually fails to find a consensus, it is even more difficult for the General Assembly to establish a consensus and act on important issues such as human rights and nuclear disarmament. When the UNSC does pass a resolution, it is difficult to ensure that it is fully enforced.

While the UN appears irrelevant when it comes to solving global security and economic issues, the organization remains extremely effective in several important areas. The UN arguably coordinates relief efforts for natural disasters better than any other organization in the world. The UN also does a good job of promoting cultural and educational exchange and it is the one place the world turns to when major humanitarian or natural disasters occur. The organization's peacekeeping missions are often preferable to violent and expensive wars and ultimately lead to favorable outcomes.

The organization has made a genuine effort the past five years to reform and bounce back from multiple scandals. During the oil for food program, Saddam's regime earned up to US$11 billion despite being under UN sanctions. Corruption within the UN, as well as poor oversight from the UNSC is what allowed for such a scandal to thrive. At a UN summit in 2005 Annan introduced reforms aimed at increasing oversight and accountability and also at reforming ethics. Many of those reforms have already taken place and others are still on the way.

The debate on the relevancy of the UN is not a new one and cannot be bundled into the "Multilateralism vs Unilateralism" argument. While the UN has failed in its mission to resolve international security issues, it succeeded wildly in humanitarian responses, aid distribution and preserving world heritage sites. Ultimately, the UN is only as good as its members; they will determine the future relevancy of the organization.

Diplomatic Courier (DC)
This article was published originally at The Diplomatic Courier: A Global Affairs Magazine in Washington, DC. For more articles, special reports, and global resources please visit www.diplomaticourier.org.
Copyright The Diplomatic Courier. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.