Heads of State, business leaders, members of academia and philanthropists alike have congregated in New York City for the 73rd annual United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). This year’s annual gathering of world leaders, themed ‘Making the United Nations Relevant to All People: Global Leadership and Shared Responsibilities for Peaceful, Equitable and Sustainable Societies’, and hosted by the controversial US President, President Donald Trump, seeks to somewhat reassert the UN’s role in the global agenda. However, with prominent world leaders such leaders from Russia, Germany, China and Canada choosing to skip out on UNGA 73.0, it is arguable that the once powerful reach of the UN is in its waning years.
One prominent criticism of the UN body, is the imbalance of power between UN member states, with the permanent member states of the Security Council, that is UK, US, China, Russia and France having more sway than the reminder member states. Permanent members of the UN Security Council have the power to veto decisions of the Security Council which may range anywhere from sanctions to peacekeeping missions. This power, shared by few but longed for by many, is not only perceived but rather heralded as the source of the power imbalance in the halls of the UN. Through the exercise of this ability, permanent members of the Security Council have through the years protected their own interests and that of their allies with little to no rebuke. Case in point, a UN proposal to intervene in Syria in 2014 was vetoed by Russia, a close ally of Assad’s regime. Similarly, human rights violations conducted by China, including the detainment of approximately one million Muslim citizens, have not been met by UN sanctions either.
This power imbalance in the UN has over the years eroded the UN’s authority, as a global peacekeeping organ that is ideally meant to serve the combined interests of its member states. This erosion of authority has led to direct attacks on the future and viability of the body as currently constituted. Particularly, countries have in recent years directly rejected the authority of the UN, noting that exercises of UN authority may amount to encroachments on their sovereignty.
Yet another criticism leveled against the UN is the sway held by advanced economies that heavily contribute toward the financing of the UN’s activities. Simply put, countries that contribute the largest share of UN resources have more bargaining power with respect to the decisions made by the UN. This, consequently, makes the UN seem ineffective and bias from the perspective of the developing and emerging economies.
While these criticism have been advanced on more than one occasion, the UN has largely remained the same in its 76 years of existence. Should it remain unchanged in coming years, perhaps its existence will only remain on paper.
Karen Kandie is the managing director, IDB Capital