The UN’s Inability to Solve Conflicts: The Problem of Diplomacy in a Global Forum

By Jackie Liu - Hong Kong SAR

Introduction

Our society is more turbulent today than it was a decade ago. Economically, our world is on the cusp of a recession. Climate change is generating devastating impacts. Conflicts in South Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Kashmir and Syria persists, while new conflicts are bubbling to the surface. Yet in the face of multitudes of formidable challenges, the problem solving capability of our world appears to be in decline. With many national governments exhibiting a lack of fortitude to find solutions, multilateralism - the idea of governments working cooperatively - faces stagnation (Nadin).

From the League of Nations to the UN

The ongoing wars across a wide spectrum of fronts in the 20th century heavily demanded the reformation of the League of Nations. A redistribution in the power dynamics, a change in the world’s economic and political structure, but also ideological rifts meant that change was critical to maintain such a large global forum. The United Nations was established on October 24, 1945 with a primary objective to avoid a destructive third world war and preserve world peace and security. This imperative was underscored by Stalin during the Yalta Conference in 1945 where he said “The main thing was to prevent quarrels in the future of the three Great Powers - USA, Britain and the USSR”. This shows how from the beginning, the UN was reflective of a realist paradigm, characterised by a hierarchical chain of command dominated by the Allies (Hardwick).

The UN in many ways is seen as a revised version of the League. However, in other ways, the UN was very different, especially in the sense that their aim was to maintain international peace and security with a commitment to economic and social development (Goodrich). The League was suspended as a result of its weakened credibility with Japan, Germany and Italy withdrawing their membership, the US never joining, and its ultimate inability to prevent aggression. In the present world, some would say that the UN is losing its credibility slowly with each failed peacekeeping mission. So, is the UN becoming like the League by the day?

The veto in the Security Council: a cause for paralysis

As outlined in the UN Charter, the main bodies of the UN include the General Assembly, composed of all member nations, and the Security Council - UNSC - amongst others. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states. The five victors of WWII, known as ‘the Big Five’ - United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France - hold permanent seats in the Security Council. They are among another 10 members that are elected by the General Assembly, who each hold their seat for two years, with five replaced each year.

Alongside the Big Five’s permanency on the Security Council, they also hold veto power. The veto power was created to reflect the legacy of the permanent members in WWII. Many would argue that with the power to veto, the permanent members hold the responsibility of being the main contributors to the UN budget. However, this is not the case. For example, Japan, a non-permanent member, is the second largest contributor to the UN budget, after China ("UN Funding by Country 2023"). This disproportionate weight of funding has led many to question the UN's fairness.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has vetoed 14 draft resolutions, most of them involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Russia has vetoed 11 concerning its allies. For example, Russia’s support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has led to four consecutive vetoes of resolutions regarding the conflict. In times of a veto, the UNSC’s power is diminished.

The ease with which the Big Five can use their veto power is what many believe to be the core of the problem at the UN. As a result of the permanent five abusing their power by prioritising their own economic and political interests, the veto power has hindered the ability of the UN to carry out necessary responses around the world (Sengupta). In the past, the veto has led to inefficient decision making, demonstrating in some ways outdated bureaucracy, and notably, failure of its mandate to protect civilians when their own state authorities are unable to do so.

The UN’s ineffectiveness in addressing conflicts

Along with the veto power, the limitations of the UN are ingrained, embedded into the very creation of this intergovernmental organisation. Its rigid structure, failures of countless peacekeeping missions and the lack of accountability all contribute to the UN's ineffectiveness in addressing conflicts.

The UN Charter, inaugurated on June 26, 1945, has undergone a mere three amendments, with the last amendment in 1973, with the purpose to enlarge the Economic and Social Council from 27 to 54 members. That was the last. So, in this aspect, the UN still heavily reflects the era of 1945: its structure does not allow for reform easily (Hardwick). According to Article 108 of the Charter, amendments must be adopted by two-thirds of the members in the General Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council ("Chapter XVIII: Amendments (Articles 108-109)"). Essentially, this implies that the veto power can never be overturned unless all five of the permanent members decide to give theirs up, a prospect deemed highly implausible.

The UN in Rwanda:

The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 stands as a major failing within UN peacekeeping operations. In 1999, an inquiry found that the UN ignored evidence that the genocide was planned and refused to act once it had started. More than 2,500 UN peacekeepers were withdrawn after the murder of ten Belgian troops. In a specific case, the peacekeeping forces deserted a school where Tutsis were taking shelter - hundreds of people inside were immediately massacred. The UN soldiers did not return to Rwanda until June, by which time hundreds of thousands of people were dead. The UN was accused of ‘leaving Rwanda to its fate.’ ("A Look into UN Peacekeeping Successes and Failures").

The UN in Haiti:

Another high profile failure was the cholera epidemic in Haiti that began in 2010 after UN peacekeepers introduced the bacteria into the country’s largest river by sewage runoff from their base ("UN Peacekeeping on 75th Anniversary: Successes, Failures and Many Challenges").

The attribution of blame to the UN can be traced to two crucial mistakes they made. Firstly, the UN failed to screen its incoming peacekeeping forces for cholera. Secondly, the UN failed to maintain basic sanitation and waste management systems. The consequence of these shortcomings had a devastating toll, with tens of thousands of deaths and an inadequately responsive UN. Ultimately, it took the UN six years to deliver a deliberately ambiguous apology, and their plan of implementing sanitation infrastructure has yet to be fulfilled. For the Haitian people, this exacerbated their lack of trust in the UN (Park) and for the general public, this showcased another major failing on the UN peacekeeping front.

These instances demonstrate the fundamental ineffectiveness of the UN in certain peacekeeping operations and highlight the problem of accountability in these humanitarian crises. As nations turn to the UN for support in dire circumstances, the organisation’s intrinsic limitations act as a barrier for solutions, casting doubt on its overall legitimacy. The lack of accountability will mean that peacekeeping operations will not learn from previous failures which overall jeopardises the UN’s credibility, necessitating urgent reforms to establish comprehensive accountability frameworks that break free from the cycle of impunity and improve the organisation's capability for effective global peacekeeping (Bryce).

Times when the UN succeeded

On the other side of the coin, the UN is a regular punching bag for critics. The failures gain disproportionate recognition in the media while many of its successes go unnoticed. It is undeniable that along with its failures came some successes. The successes of the UN can be attributed to their supporting role in humanitarian aid and their advocacy for fundamental human rights.

During the Cold War, the UN successfully pursued its charter goals in areas such as decolonisation, protection of human rights, respect for international law, promotion of social progress and better living standards for people. During this time, membership increased from 50 to 189. The Cold War also demonstrated the value of the Security Council as a diplomatic instrument. The parties to the Cold War never ceased talking to each other. The Council allowed for moments of cooperation - most notably the end to the Iran-Iraq war in 1998 (Nadin). Between the years of 1987 and 1991, the United Nations not only helped end fighting between Iran and Iraq, but they also led the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, established a broad-based coalition government in Cambodia, and ended El Salvador’s chronic civil war (Touval). With the growth in numbers of conflicts in the world, UN peacekeeping operations have continued growing. At the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, there were 11,000 UN peacekeepers. By 2014, there were 130,000 ("UN Peacekeeping on 75th Anniversary: Successes, Failures and Many Challenges"). In practical terms, the UN has been in the forefront for many years for humanitarian support. It is undeniable that the UN has undergone improvements to allow them to assist with these crises around the world with the increasing number of members and increasing number of peacekeepers, showing a determination to achieve their goals.

In terms of advocacy, the UN has a specific focus on human rights. In places where people are wrestling for their fundamental human rights, the UN stepped in during specific instances for support. In the background, the UN established the first comprehensive framework of human rights law in the world. The organisation defined human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and the subsequent International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in 1966 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966. These documents outlined the rights to equality, free movement, education, religion, and asylum, along with many others. The Human Rights Council, composed of 47 representatives, conducts a review every four years where it assesses the human rights record of all UN member states and presents nations with recommendations (Balakir). The successes of the UN often go undetected so it is wrong to say that the UN is an organisation solely with limitations.

A world without the UN

“If the UN one day disappears, or more likely just slides into neglect, it is only then that we would become fully aware of the gaping hole this would leave in what remained of the postwar order” former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd outlined in his article for the Guardian in 2016 (Rudd). This is true. With the development of the United Nations beginning before the suspension of the League of Nations, the world has not seen a break from a line of international organisations of such large scale in more than a century. In society today, there is an absolute need for a global forum. Without one like the UN, as Kevin Rudd mentioned, there would be a significant power vacuum (Weiss).

A world without the UN would cause a hole in the arenas of 1. international peace and security; 2. human rights and humanitarian action; and, 3. the economy. Despite its faults, the extent of the system stemming from its principal organs is crucial in taking necessary action to address situations on the global front. The 100,000 soldiers, 10,000 police, and 10,000 civilians currently serving in peace operations across the world - 80% in Africa - would be absent from the international landscape. In terms of humanitarian action, such vision and idealism present in the works of programs: UN Development Programme, World Food Programme, and UNICEF, all programmes under the UN, would not exist (Weiss). Lastly, in the economic arena, coordination, policy review, recommendations on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the implementation of internationally-agreed goals would have generated a more limited foundation without the Economic and Social Council within the UN ("Main Bodies").

It is true that without the UN, other smaller organisations would undoubtedly come to fill in the void. However, power and action would be dispersed. The UN ties together many big organisations into one unit, spanning a plethora of institutions. Funding and programmes to specialised agencies and departments has allowed the UN to exercise cooperation under an unified power. Without this main body, the world would lapse into a further incomprehensible mess with exacerbated conflicts, leaving these countries nowhere to fall back on. Its prominence on a global scale would likely leave a gap so big that no other organisations could fill. The foundation of our society has been built to have a leader. The UN is the leader in this case.

Contradictions: Corruption, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency

Corruption. While some critics say that the UN is corrupt, many would argue that corruption is inherent in organisations the size of the UN. Going back to the Enlightenment, philosopher Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature - that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state - is ‘nasty, brutish, and short’ ("Thomas Hobbes: 'Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short'”). Applying Hobbes' argument to the present day world, the reason for corruption is simply that it is part of human nature. The UN’s corruption is in human nature. The UN’s corruption can be seen in many aspects, one in particular is the use of the veto power. These member states are willing to use these measures to maximise personal gain, or distance themselves from personal complications. But then again, what organisation near the size of the UN is not corrupt? Corruption is everywhere, and it is simply a question of what are the best ways to minimise it.

Ineffectiveness. When decisions are not made, the UN is blamed for its inaction. When decisions fail, the UN is blamed for its incompetency. At the end of the day, the UN is the sum of its components which are made up of and propelled by the work of its 193 member states. It is funded by governments, decisions are created by governments. Ultimately, member states are the principles for the organisation and therefore bear the responsibility of the failures of the UN. The willingness of each member state in engaging in the goals of the UN determines how much the UN can actually do.

Inefficiency. The divided international community, especially divisions in the UN Security Council - which must approve its missions - creates a gaping hole within the UN, challenging the future of the organisation. The permanent five will continue to exert their veto power whenever they feel necessary, often in the patterns of China and Russia vetoing the same resolution and the US, France and Britain’s support on the other end. There is undoubtedly an uneven distribution of power within the UN that dates back to its formation as a result of the P5’s legacy in WWII; however, when has there ever been an intergovernmental organisation without hierarchy? With a band seemingly of egocentric countries, the inefficiency of the UN can only be blamed on them, and not the organisation itself.

Conclusion

The UN’s inability to solve conflicts comes as a result of: the veto power - exploited by the permanent five to uphold their global standing - and its structural rigidity. Despite successes in human rights advocacy, the UN’s inherent contradictions demand urgent attention. Viewing the UN through the lens of a world without it, reveals a potential void in international peace, human rights advocacy, and economic coordination. The importance of the UN is undeniable. Member states must make a bigger effort to confront these issues in order to foster genuine cooperation among member states to regain its effectiveness as a global peacemaker and catalyst for progress in the 21st century.

Bibliography

NADIN, PETER. “The United Nations: A History of Success and Failure.” AQ: Australian Quarterly, vol. 90, no. 4, 2019, pp. 11–17. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26773344. Accessed 18 Nov. 2023.

Hardwick, Nicola A. "The UN during the Cold War: “A Tool of Superpower Influence Stymied by Superpower Conflict”?" E-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 10 Jun. 2011, www.e-ir.info/2011/06/10/the-un-during-the-cold-war-a-tool-of-superpower-influence-stymied-by-superpower-conflict/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

Goodrich, Leland M. “From League of Nations to United Nations.” International Organization, vol. 1, no. 1, 1947, pp. 3–21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2703515. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

"UN Funding by Country 2023." World Population Review, worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/un-funding-by-country. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

Sengupta, Somini. "Why the U.N. Can’T Solve the World’S Problems." The New York Times, 26 Jul. 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/07/27/sunday-review/why-the-un-cant-solve-the-worlds-problems.html#:~:text=The%20problem%20is%20not%20that,veto%20any%20Security%20Council%20action. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

"Chapter XVIII: Amendments (Articles 108-109)." UN, www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-18. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

"A Look into UN Peacekeeping Successes and Failures." IMAMS, imamsonline.com/a-look-into-un-peacekeeping-successes-and-failures/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

"UN Peacekeeping on 75th Anniversary: Successes, Failures and Many Challenges." The Economic Times, 25 May 2023, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/un-peacekeeping-on-75th-anniversary-successes-failures-and-many-challenges/articleshow/100494964.cms?from=mdr. Accessed 19 Nov. 2023.

Park, Joshua. "In Haiti, the United Nations Is a Violator of Human Rights." Harvard International Review, 20 Nov. 2019, hir.harvard.edu/in-haiti-the-un-is-a-violator-of-human-rights/#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20the%20UN%27s%20failure,little%20response%20by%20the%20UN. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

Bryce, Hannah. "When Will the UN Be Held to Account for Failing to Protect Civilians?" The Guardians, 23 Mar. 2016, www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/mar/23/un-united-nations-held-to-account-for-failing-to-protect-civilians-south-sudan. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

Touval, Saadia. “Why the U.N. Fails.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 73, no. 5, 1994, pp. 44–57. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20046830. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

Balakir, Katelyn. "Failures and Successes of the UN." The Alliance for Citizen Engagement, 22 Aug. 2021, ace-usa.org/blog/research/research-foreignpolicy/failures-and-successes-of-the-un/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

Rudd, Kevin. "Kevin Rudd: My 10 Principles to Reform the United Nations, Before It's Too Late." The Guardian, 8 Aug. 2016, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/08/my-10-principles-to-reform-the-united-nations-before-its-too-late. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

Weiss, Thomas G. “Would the World Be Better Without the UN?” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 2, 2017, pp. 29–38. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/90012618. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

"Main Bodies." UN, www.un.org/en/about-us/main-bodies#:~:text=The%20Economic%20and%20Social%20Council%20is%20the%20principal%20body%20for,of%20internationally%20agreed%20development%20goals. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.

"Thomas Hobbes: 'Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short'." Yale University Press London, 4 May 2013, yalebooksblog.co.uk/2013/04/05/thomas-hobbes-solitary-poor-nasty-brutish-and-short/. Accessed 20 Nov. 2023.