Given the current political situation in Libya, the UN has been thrust into the spotlight once again for its inability to be a relevant global peacekeeping organization. While the UN has a well-written, albeit lengthy, charter, this organization has failed to act as the peacekeeping organization that it claims to be.
For one, since its inception after the Second World War, the UN has been found to hold elitist ideologies since the nations with the most power in the organization are, or were, superpowers at one time. The fact that the founding nations (Russia, United States, China, United Kingdom and France) have unregulated nuclear programs despite being in the UN makes it blatantly obvious that the real function of the UN is to protect these countries’ interests. To add insult to injury, the UN often condemns countries outside this elite group for developing their own nuclear programs. In fact, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council responsible for regulating nuclear power and making major decisions on world issues are comprised of just the founding nations!
Now that we’ve breached the topic of the United Nations Security Council, it is important to mention the many indiscretions that this group carries for personal gain. As it stands now, the five permanent nations on the council have the power to veto any action the Council decides. Therefore, a veto from any of the five members from the nations mentioned previously would immediately take precedence over all other nations’ opinions. With this kind of power, any of the elite nations can stop any action from being taken that does not cater to the political or economic interests of the founding five. To provide evidence for this claim, a total of 215 substantive resolutions were vetoed by these nations, with 93 of them occurring between 1966 and 1985. Interestingly, about 50 of those vetoes were exercised by either the US or the Soviet Union. If you can recall basic history in high school, you’ll notice that this period coincides with the Cold War… (it’s pretty easy to connect the crater-sized dots here). Now that the extent of this practice has been verified, Dr. Mearsheimer, a leading authority on international relations, has mentioned in best-selling books that the actions related to Israeli-based resolutions have been vetoed over 82 times despite the opposing opinions of the majority of the council. In addition to this, humanitarian efforts have been halted by the Security Council as the “permanent five” have only allowed proposals with favourable political and strategic motives to be carried forth. An infamous example of this gross negligence were two incidents in the early 90’s where the UN sanctioned protection for the oil-rich Kuwaitis during the Iraqi invasion while the Rwandans got no such protection during the 1994 genocide.
Other branches of the UN, much like the UN Security Council, have not performed better when it comes to upholding core ideals. Time and time again, the UN has shown its inability, as a global organization, to handle international conflict on all scales. Since the time of the Cold War (which, in itself, is an example of the UN’s irrelevance in global society), a number of major human rights crises have gone unnoticed or have not been addressed with an appropriate response. The most prominent example of human right violations would be the Darfur crisis in Sudan. While repeated acts of genocide have caused over 300,000 civilian deaths, the UN has failed to act appropriately against such serious human rights violations. Another situation in which the UN has failed to intervene was the Srebrenica massacre where Serbian troops conducted mass murder against Bosnian Muslims. While Srebrenica had been declared a UN “safe area,” it was the Dutch peacekeepers that were responsible for securing the area while the UN did nothing to prevent the genocide.
Alongside the lack of intervention during human rights crises, the UN has been known to preferentially deal with nations that are of political interest to the permanent five. Israel has been, by far, the most discussed nation at the United Nations, with the most resources and time spent on it than any other issue. If Israel had a particularly bad track record of human rights violations, this amount of attention to Israel by the UN would be warranted; however, this is obviously not the case. The fact that the UN has focused on Israel’s issues and has excluded nations with more troubling issues further indicates that the UN acts in the interest of improving political and economical relations for the permanent five (since Israel provides a foothold in the Middle East oil supply).
Before you immediately brand me as a borderline anarchist, it is important to note that I don’t hate all global organizations; however, hearing about the use of such organizations to exert power over vulnerable nations tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth. If the UN were to redeem themselves in my eyes, they would have to completely revamp the Security Council so that other nations are represented as permanent members. Finally, the UN would have to rebuild itself from scratch to actually become the relevant global peacekeeping institution that it should be.
Leave a Reply