Brett D. Schaefer
If it wants to stay relevant, the United Nations needs to focus more on its original purpose as a forum for conflict resolution rather than global policymaking.
On October 24, the United Nations celebrates its 80th anniversary. To many member nations, however, the 80-year-old world body is fading into costly ineffectiveness and irrelevance. Unsurprisingly, the resulting financial constraints have led Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to propose a retrenchment, restructuring, and sweeping cuts to the 2026 budget and staff.
The central challenge was summed up by President Donald Trump in his speech before the UN last month: “What is the purpose of the United Nations?”
The UN Charter identifies its intended purposes: to take collective measures to maintain international peace and security; to promote friendly relations among nations based on equal rights and self-determination; to promote cooperative efforts to solve international problems; to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to serve as a forum for addressing those common ends.
Unfortunately, the UN has not lived up to its founders’ lofty goals.
There have been hundreds of wars and significant conflicts since 1945. Yet the UN Security Council has only authorized the use of military force twice: to defend South Korea in 1950 and to compel the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait in 1990. Lesser actions to deploy peacekeepers or bless non-UN military operations have some successes, like Côte d’Ivoire, but also tragic failures like the genocide in Rwanda. Missions in places like South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo drag on for decades, costing billions while failing to deliver lasting stability.
Most glaringly, the UN is largely impotent in major crises like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, it was actively harmful in Gaza, rewarding terrorism and manipulating standards to declare a state of famine where normal rules would not support such a conclusion. Notably, one of the most consequential peace agreements in decades—the deal to end the conflict in Gaza and return Israeli civilians held hostage by Hamas—was a direct repudiation of UN efforts. There is a reason why the secretary-general was largely uninvolved in the ceasefire negotiation process.
No comments:
Post a Comment