The United Nations
Embedded Files
Apply to be part of our new column: LAW
“We the people of the United Nations determined
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”
The United Nations, a global institution in its own category of global presence, influence and change, has come under significant scrutiny in the last year. Broadly, this is a result of the middle eastern conflict, the Russo-Ukrainian war, the shifts of population around the world, nutrition shortages, climate change, issues which affect people, their occupations and way of life, but which they have very little power to solve. Ultimately, the grievance that is felt for the UN, is the fact that they have, in their 80 years of existence, been seemingly unable to fulfill their pledges in the UN charter above; for peace, rights, justice and progress.
This appears to be damning. Not only has the UN failed to complete these worldwide tasks, but it also appears, in recent months, to be packing up and closing shop. The peacekeeping force, known as the blue helmets, will be reduced by 25% undermining their ability to undertake their essential tasks in Africa in the Middle East especially, protecting civilians and maintaining ceasefires. Other aspects of this shift have been seen as well, with many departments being induced to relocate from New York and Geneva to less central locations as well as the loss of many skilled officials further undermining the efficacy of the organisation.
However this may look in the immediate term though, it is important to consider the broader situation. The UN is an intergovernmental organisation. What this means is that it supersedes and collaborates with all governments around the world, each of which are its member states. But, an organisation, even one as vast as the UN, is only the sum of its parts.
With the rise of populism and nationalism in powerful countries around the world, member states have become less and less willing to support global initiatives and have drawn focus away from global problems.
This can be seen to culminate in the billion-dollar fund withdrawal which President Trump has wrought upon the organisation since January, but other examples of the waning support for the UN can be seen across the world. Major contributors such as Britain and Germany have slowly but surely reduced their input, instead focusing on national problems as well as enhanced defence spending. Russia, a permanent member of the UN’s security council has time and again proved itself unwilling to compromise over their national situation, vetoing resolution after resolution and in so doing, reducing its focus on problems abroad, the list goes on.
The question we must necessarily ask ourselves, therefore, is whether the UN is a worthy vessel to carry out its assigned task. The answer is necessarily complex. While many might argue that this period of conflict, unrest and crisis should mark the end of the era of the UN, I would disagree. The UN operated for many years with far fewer resources overcoming greater predicaments , completing its mission frugally and effectively. It was only by the late 1980s that far more funding was allowed to the UN with the global economy on the rise and the end of the Cold War. By the reduction once again to a skeleton staff and a limit on the expense of living and travel, this post-war-style UN does not seem like an impossibility and this slimming down of the UN system could indeed be considered a positive change, if it were not for one factor: its enhanced responsibility.
The question we must necessarily ask ourselves, therefore, is whether the UN is a worthy vessel to carry out its assigned task. The answer is necessarily complex. While many might argue that this period of conflict, unrest and crisis should mark the end of the era of the UN, I would disagree. The UN operated for many years with far fewer resources overcoming greater predicaments , completing its mission frugally and effectively. It was only by the late 1980s that far more funding was allowed to the UN with the global economy on the rise and the end of the Cold War. By the reduction once again to a skeleton staff and a limit on the expense of living and travel, this post-war-style UN does not seem like an impossibility and this slimming down of the UN system could indeed be considered a positive change, if it were not for one factor: its enhanced responsibility.
The UN, since 1945, has acquired a far broader role on the international stage than a mere forum for diplomacy. The Sustainable development goals (SDGs), ranging from equality to climate action, encompass issues far beyond the scope of its founding principles which necessarily require extended funds and resources. If member states, naturally the instigators of this shift, are unwilling to fund their own ambitions by funding the UN, there is little justification in blaming it.
We would all like a sleeker, newer, more efficient version of this lumbering organisation. We would all like its goals, founding and more recent, to be achieved as quickly as possible. But in order to do this, we must all, as nations and peoples, support it in its efforts, look at the bigger picture rather than push it away in favour of more tangible and immediate issues. The UN is not not perfect, but is a significant step in the right direction. In the words of UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld,
‘The United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell.'
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse