This week has been the annual meetings of the world leaders at the General Assembly….and as usual was full of drama and theatrics.
I admit it…I am not as gung-ho as I use to be about the United Nations (UN)……what started off as a great idea and the elimination of the necessity for war has become a joke among international analysts (me included).
I have tried to explain the reason why the UN seems ineffectual…..https://lobotero.com/2015/06/30/why-hate-the-united-nations-un/
I read a lot of papers trying to keep up to date since I left the international relations field…..and this one is a paper about the limitations and capabilities of the UN in conflict management……
A plethora of contemporary challenges have exposed the UN to criticism in its ability to evolve with changes in geopolitics, most notably the organization’s responsive rather than reactive approach to confronting international crises and the rise in nations disinterested in international consensus building. “The protection of civilians, the threat of violent extremism… and the dilemmas of state building” have presented obstacles that have forced both the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and the UNSC to reevaluate their ability to comprehensively address today’s global challenges. However, the primary obstacle threatening the capacity of the UN remains “how to deal with conflicts – be they between or within states – without offending the national sovereignty of its member states”. Additionally, the UNSC remains controversial for its lack of global representation amongst the P-5 members with the ability to veto vital resolutions brought before the body. Given that the organization “remains largely unchanged since its founding in 1946”, debate regarding “its efficacy and authority as a mediator on matters of international security” is ongoing and increasingly prevalent in light of presently deteriorating modern conflicts. With the determination of the P-5 having been structured in the aftermath of World War II, critics note that the current authority of the body disproportionately favors the positions of the permanent members, thus hindering the UNSC’s ability to distance itself from the sovereign interests of states when attempting to combat international security risks. Respective geopolitical aims of hegemons are evident in the present stalemate in the UNSC between Russia and the United States, with the veto power granted to permanent members constraining “the Council from engaging in the resolution of civil wars within their borders and in areas of perceived vital interest”. Evidently, there is a disconnect between present threats to international security and the capacity for entities such as the UNSC to effectively mediate and mitigate conflict. The archaic structure of the UN and its entities makes it unable to address transitions in conflict that have complicated the need for resolution vis-à-vis mediation between nation states.
I think there is a place for the UN in the management and resolutions of conflict but to do so there would need to be a change…..for one get rid of the permanent members of the Security Council…those members have done NOTHING to make the world a safer place.
“Lego Ergo Scribo”