The United Nations is considered the nucleus of modern diplomacy. Therefore, after 75 years of intense diplomatic procedures, 71 international peacekeeping missions and an annual budget of approximately 3 billion dollars, it is only reasonable to examine whether the organization fulfils its true purpose.
Establishment & Main Goals
The UN was formed in 1945, immediately after World War 2, with the main aim of securing international peace. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, had disappointingly failed to do so. The emergence of WW2 highlighted the need for a new, transformed institution that would succeed in maintaining global peace. United Nations served as this reformed, yet exceedingly questioned, organization.
Initially, fifty one nations made up the UN. Soon, more began to follow suit, leading to the staggering number of 193 member-states in 2020. All member-nations agree upon a Charter in which the main purposes of the UN are stated. These purposes can be summarized in “securing world peace through international cooperation.” To achieve this goal, the UN also addresses other issues including (but not limited to) poverty, terrorism, climate change and diseases.
Successes
To date, the UN has proven successful in accomplishing its main goal: securing international peace. Given that a potential and much dreaded third world war has so far been avoided, it is safe to say that the UN is more efficient than its predecessor. Apart from preventing a ruinous war of global scale, the United Nations has also offered significant assistance in the humanitarian sector. The organization provided food to ninety million people in seventy five countries, aid to thirty four million refugees and maternal help to thirty million women per year. The UN signed eighty treaties regarding human rights and earned eleven Nobel Peace Prizes.
Criticism
Are these successes enough? Do these statistics demonstrate actual success, or do they merely conceal the failure of the institution? Over the years, the UN has come faced severe criticism in terms of ineffectiveness, injustice and more.
Veto Power
Veto can be described as “a recipe for paralysis,” and it is one of UN’s thorniest characteristics. Veto is a right the five permanent members of the Security Council (US, UK, China, Russia and France) granted to themselves during the UN’s formation. The US alone has exercised its veto power sixteen times, and Russia has done so on thirteen occasions! Many of these vetoes happened in regards to the Syrian Conflict, making de-escalation nearly impossible. Except for the “immediate” veto, which is scarcely used, nations excessively use the “hidden veto” as a type of threat in order to serve their interests. It goes without saying that this situation renders the Security Council highly ineffectual and indicates a significant weakness: the inability to reach consensus. Veto, though, seems to be a fait accompli and highly unlikely to be eliminated despite harsh condemnation.
Funding
The UN is funded by its members depending on their wealth. The contribution of each nation is determined by complicated formulas that take into consideration gross national income, population and debt burden. This situation is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there are plenty of delays in funding due to members’ inability to pay. Secondly, funding comes mostly from wealthy nations. As a result, the organization is reluctant to sanction its most prosperous members, even if their actions require punishment, as this would lead to a disastrous cut in funding. Undoubtedly, this undermines the ideals of equality and impartiality which supposedly regulate the UN.
Serving the people
The Charter of the UN begins with “We the peoples of the United Nations.” Thus far, the UN appears to serve the interests of its most powerful members rather than helping everyday people. Individuals outside the diplomatic bubble cannot bring their viewpoints, concerns and needs to the UN’s attention.
Recommendations
Unfortunately, the list of the organization’s flaws does not stop here. The UN has also been censured – even by its own staff – for bureaucracy, competition among agencies and peacekeeping scandals. Clearly, the UN is in need of reform. Some people advocate that the organization needs to have a greater role in world affairs to bring about substantial change; others believe that the organization has stepped out of its boundaries and needs to focus solely on humanitarian work. Perhaps, the solution lies in other, less drastic, internal changes.
Administrative Transformation
Bureaucracy has been making the UN less and less operative. Therefore, simplifying the procedures and hiring knowledgeable staff would immediately increase the organization’s efficiency. Additionally, relocating the headquarters from New York into a less expensive area would significantly reduce the running costs and make the organization independent from wealthy nations. This financial independence combined with the elimination of veto power and the equal treatment of all states could finally restore fairness in the UN.
Unity
The abundance of agencies results in duplications and competitiveness. Not only does this phenomenon consume valuable time, but it also undermines the effectiveness of the UN. As the name of the organization suggests, agencies need to work unitedly. Hence, it is essential to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each agency so that aid and peacekeeping can be strategic, coordinated and impactful.
Engaging the people
It is high time the UN changed its state-centric model and let citizens step into the diplomatic arena. Everyday people should be able to understand the procedures, express their opinions and be included in the decision-making process. Inclusion of ordinary people can be achieved with simulations such as Model United Nations, surveys, feedbacks and citizen panels.
Conclusion
Overall, the United Nations has done a praiseworthy job in securing international peace and assisting those in need. However, several negative aspects overshadow any good act. To truly fulfill its purpose, the organization needs to be transformed from within. Adapting the UN to face modern challenges can turn the dream of peace and prosperity into reality. The fathers of the UN have clearly proven that global unity may be demanding yet definitely not utopic. However, if we cannot overcome simple organizational flaws to achieve international welfare, then it is not the founders we let down; it is ourselves.
Establishment & Main Goals
The UN was formed in 1945, immediately after World War 2, with the main aim of securing international peace. Its predecessor, the League of Nations, had disappointingly failed to do so. The emergence of WW2 highlighted the need for a new, transformed institution that would succeed in maintaining global peace. United Nations served as this reformed, yet exceedingly questioned, organization.
Initially, fifty one nations made up the UN. Soon, more began to follow suit, leading to the staggering number of 193 member-states in 2020. All member-nations agree upon a Charter in which the main purposes of the UN are stated. These purposes can be summarized in “securing world peace through international cooperation.” To achieve this goal, the UN also addresses other issues including (but not limited to) poverty, terrorism, climate change and diseases.
Successes
To date, the UN has proven successful in accomplishing its main goal: securing international peace. Given that a potential and much dreaded third world war has so far been avoided, it is safe to say that the UN is more efficient than its predecessor. Apart from preventing a ruinous war of global scale, the United Nations has also offered significant assistance in the humanitarian sector. The organization provided food to ninety million people in seventy five countries, aid to thirty four million refugees and maternal help to thirty million women per year. The UN signed eighty treaties regarding human rights and earned eleven Nobel Peace Prizes.
Criticism
Are these successes enough? Do these statistics demonstrate actual success, or do they merely conceal the failure of the institution? Over the years, the UN has come faced severe criticism in terms of ineffectiveness, injustice and more.
Veto Power
Veto can be described as “a recipe for paralysis,” and it is one of UN’s thorniest characteristics. Veto is a right the five permanent members of the Security Council (US, UK, China, Russia and France) granted to themselves during the UN’s formation. The US alone has exercised its veto power sixteen times, and Russia has done so on thirteen occasions! Many of these vetoes happened in regards to the Syrian Conflict, making de-escalation nearly impossible. Except for the “immediate” veto, which is scarcely used, nations excessively use the “hidden veto” as a type of threat in order to serve their interests. It goes without saying that this situation renders the Security Council highly ineffectual and indicates a significant weakness: the inability to reach consensus. Veto, though, seems to be a fait accompli and highly unlikely to be eliminated despite harsh condemnation.
Funding
The UN is funded by its members depending on their wealth. The contribution of each nation is determined by complicated formulas that take into consideration gross national income, population and debt burden. This situation is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, there are plenty of delays in funding due to members’ inability to pay. Secondly, funding comes mostly from wealthy nations. As a result, the organization is reluctant to sanction its most prosperous members, even if their actions require punishment, as this would lead to a disastrous cut in funding. Undoubtedly, this undermines the ideals of equality and impartiality which supposedly regulate the UN.
Serving the people
The Charter of the UN begins with “We the peoples of the United Nations.” Thus far, the UN appears to serve the interests of its most powerful members rather than helping everyday people. Individuals outside the diplomatic bubble cannot bring their viewpoints, concerns and needs to the UN’s attention.
Recommendations
Unfortunately, the list of the organization’s flaws does not stop here. The UN has also been censured – even by its own staff – for bureaucracy, competition among agencies and peacekeeping scandals. Clearly, the UN is in need of reform. Some people advocate that the organization needs to have a greater role in world affairs to bring about substantial change; others believe that the organization has stepped out of its boundaries and needs to focus solely on humanitarian work. Perhaps, the solution lies in other, less drastic, internal changes.
Administrative Transformation
Bureaucracy has been making the UN less and less operative. Therefore, simplifying the procedures and hiring knowledgeable staff would immediately increase the organization’s efficiency. Additionally, relocating the headquarters from New York into a less expensive area would significantly reduce the running costs and make the organization independent from wealthy nations. This financial independence combined with the elimination of veto power and the equal treatment of all states could finally restore fairness in the UN.
Unity
The abundance of agencies results in duplications and competitiveness. Not only does this phenomenon consume valuable time, but it also undermines the effectiveness of the UN. As the name of the organization suggests, agencies need to work unitedly. Hence, it is essential to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each agency so that aid and peacekeeping can be strategic, coordinated and impactful.
Engaging the people
It is high time the UN changed its state-centric model and let citizens step into the diplomatic arena. Everyday people should be able to understand the procedures, express their opinions and be included in the decision-making process. Inclusion of ordinary people can be achieved with simulations such as Model United Nations, surveys, feedbacks and citizen panels.
Conclusion
Overall, the United Nations has done a praiseworthy job in securing international peace and assisting those in need. However, several negative aspects overshadow any good act. To truly fulfill its purpose, the organization needs to be transformed from within. Adapting the UN to face modern challenges can turn the dream of peace and prosperity into reality. The fathers of the UN have clearly proven that global unity may be demanding yet definitely not utopic. However, if we cannot overcome simple organizational flaws to achieve international welfare, then it is not the founders we let down; it is ourselves.
