How united is The United Nations?

Abdulai Mansaray: Sierra Leone Telegraph: 23 September 2024:

The United Nations, with a current membership of 193 was established in 1945. After the United Nations’ Charter was ratified by its main proponents China, France, The United Kingdom, The United States and other signatories at the San Francisco Conference, the organisation was officially launched on the 24th October, 1945. This came after the officially agreed end of the Second World War on 2nd September, 1945.

Among several laudable and noble reasons behind the formation of the organisation, one of the key motivations behind the founding of the United Nations was to “establish a mechanism that would prevent the horrors of previous world wars and the Holocaust from happening again”. The need to safeguard international peace and to avoid future conflicts was central to the United Nations’ binding moral parameters.

The UN aimed to promote and strengthen peace, security and as well as support the development of cooperation among states. Among the numerous tenets of the organisation, the Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10th December, 1948.

The declaration centred on the principles of international cooperation, sovereignty and equality of all members; settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; refusal to threaten or use force in international relations; and non-international in matters that are essentially within the internal competence of any state. Is that still the case?

There is no doubt about the lofty ideals that led to the creation of the United Nations. To describe it as well-meaning would be an understatement. The UN has achieved a lot of what it set out to do. Its central mission to contribute in maintaining international peace, security and effect stability of the world has been immeasurable. However, the UN’s credulity on its central mission has increasingly come under serious scrutiny recently.

The organisation is facing one of its wildest geopolitical fires to date, and its ability to extinguish them is to all intents and purposes, visibly diminishing. The United Nation’s credibility and image has been suspect for several reasons. However, it is the organisation’s response and handling of the simultaneous events in Palestine and Ukraine that has exposed what many see as the inexplicable double-faced approach.

The UN Security Council, which has been dominated by its five permanent members, the United States, China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom is the most powerful organ charged with the unenviable task of regulating “world peace”. The members have in the hands, the power to veto anything and everything that does not suit their individual or collective taste buds. It is this power play among these veto wielding nations that has left the UN in an increasing situation of stalemate.

The situation in Gaza, Ukraine and to some relative extent Sudan has now left the UN in a position whereby it can’t even decide what to have for breakfast. Sadly, for the UN and by extension the world, this is why for the first time in its nearly eight- decade history, many are increasingly questioning its relevance.

Many observers are beginning to see the UN as the tool of choice the West uses to criticise its geopolitical “adversaries”. Nothing gives credence to this idea more than the juxtaposition of the ongoing siege in Gaza and the invasion of Ukraine by Israel and Russia respectively.

Is the UN in the final throes of disintegration?

With the Russian invasion and Israel’s occupation, we have noticed how Russia has blocked all pro-Ukraine resolution it doesn’t like and America shielding any resolution aimed at its step child Israel, thanks to their veto wielding powers. This and many more is what has rocked the essence and relevance of the UN to its core, leaving its Secretary General Antonio Guterres keen to remedy the chaos with an overriding appeal to “its member states for the spirit of compromise”.

It is unquestionable that the status quo runs contrary to anything that the UN was established to prevent in the first place.

The central mission of the UN to maintain international peace is now very questionable, if not laughable. With Israel continuing its ongoing siege and destruction of Gaza and its environs, thanks to US, UK and French guaranteed impunity as a response to Hamas’ terror attacks in Israel last October on the one hand, and with NATO’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine as the pawn on the other, is it becoming increasingly plausible to conclude that the UN is as an establishment in its final throes of disintegration?

Is it any that wonder the West is eyeing up organisations like BRICS as counter weights with potential for breakaways, just like ECOWAS begrudging the SAHEL states of Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger?

The current situation has exposed the UN big time. There has been a long history of clamour from member states asking to extend the membership of the Security Council. This has always been met with correspondingly deafening silence.

With the threat of disunity in the United Nations, there are now overdue efforts to extend the Security Council with two seats for Africa. Ironically, these additional two members will be cosmetic like toothless bulldogs with NO VETO POWERS.  Talk about being fed with empty spoons.

Meanwhile, the Big Five would continue blocking resolutions ranging from sanctions, peacekeeping missions, military interventions or initiating regime changes in defence of their foreign policy decisions or individual national interests. This and many more examples of double standards is what is threatening the survival of the UN today.

One sure sign that the UN is losing its gravitas is the number of leaders increasingly choosing to not dignify the UN meetings and assemblies (UNGA) with their presence. It’s becoming fashionable for many leaders to send so-called high-ranking Ministers instead. In those days, the UN Security Council or general Assembly was a must and the place to be in every leader’s calendar.

Even the long and boring speeches were worth the endurance. These days, it’s treated as a talking shop that is not worth the distraction.

Why is the UN seemingly losing its relevance?

There are 101 reasons for this apparent loss of relevance, but chief among them is the blatant hypocrisy and double standards in the UN.  The UN prides itself among others, on its declaration of Human Rights. The declaration of Human rights is founded on the concept and ideals of EQUAL RIGHTS. It is the concept of equal rights that the UN has very blatantly undermined, dishonoured and shattered by its dealings with its member states.

Member states are finally catching up on the notion that in the UN, some “are more equal than others”. Take a look at how the UN selectively uses its weapon of charging individuals and leaders with war crime. It is obvious that with Africa experiencing the highest preponderance of western backed and western initiated internecine wars and political interregna, the continent boasts of an unenviable record of war criminals.

Putin invaded Ukraine and a warrant of arrest was issued for him as a war criminal. A similar charge was mentioned towards Israel and the UN officials were subject to threats and investigations for having the audacity to try out The UN’s policy and standard on the ANNOINTED protected species.

In recent times, this kind of inequality has meant that “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it is (sic) impossible to say which is which”.

People are now wondering what all the protestations were about after World War 2. What happened to NEVER AGAIN? How come the people on whose behalf the world said NEVER again are the same ones perpetuating the contrary?

Now that Israel is hoping to extend its military muscle across the Middle East, and with Lebanon its latest target, some people seem to have an inkling that it could lead to a wider war, creeping into a Third World War.

The war or chaos in the Middle East has become a major issue in the American elections. With Joe Biden in lame duck mode, Israel feels increasingly emboldened to carry on its assault in the region. Israel has a right to defend itself just as the world is slowly but surely an acquired capacity to witness tragedy, evil and death.

The world is slowly being numbed into accepting such causalities into the realm of normalcy, so much so that no one is surprised or alarmed by the increasing death toll. It is the time for normalizing the abnormal, as none of the Candidates in America dare condemn Israel. It’s political suicide to even contemplate such a move.

The war in Gaza is nearing its one-year anniversary and it is still the same usual mantra of “we are working round the clock to get a cease fire and bring the hostages home”. The only time one suspects anger with Israel is when a Western life is lost in the crossfire.

Kamala Harris and Trump are taking calculated risks to upset the “Gaza-loving” electorate, knowing full well that both are on the same page. They might lose support from this group. However, it does not guarantee either that they will flock to the other. At best, they might abstain from voting, a risk both Trump and Harris are keen to take instead of upsetting the AIPAC.

The UN is aware of the questions and eyebrows raised, and it is aware of the threat it faces. It is no wonder the UN has been trying to finalise the document for a meeting called “Summit of the Future”.  This is aimed at providing a blueprint on how to deal with current worldly issues ranging from climate change, AI, wars and many other challenges of the 21ST. century.

What is plainly obvious is how the Big 5 have been using their veto powers to protect their interests. It is no wonder that countries ignored arrest warrants issued for people like former President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan and Putin as hot air. Not only did such warrants went unheeded, but also drew a lot of criticism and scrutiny of the UN’s conduct of business.

What are the implications for The UN’s perceived inequality?

It has been a long time since the individual countries started undermining the credibility and essence of the United Nations. When the United Nations was founded on the principles of maintaining world peace, strengthen security and to “establish a mechanism that would prevent the horrors of previous world wars and the Holocaust from happening again”, it was plausible to see the organisation like God’s deputy on earth.

The UN was supposed to be the voice of reason, compassion, justice, fairness and the King Solomon of this world. It would be disingenuous to dismiss the United Nations as a failure or otherwise. Nevertheless, it would be equally dishonest not to address the challenges and difficulties facing the organisation.

Judging by its ideologies, policies, concepts and principles, it is easy to conclude that the UN was built on the constructs of democracy as its bedrock with corresponding guardrails.

One of the UN’s blueprints is the Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free speech, to assembly, freedom to worship and etc. These are some of the tenets that form the bedrock on which democracy has relatively flourished. The concept of the UN was suggestive of “all for one, and one for all”.

Unfortunately, with the growing influence of capitalism, democracy is now facing its most existential threat the world over. It is obvious that the threat that democracy is facing from capitalism has insidiously wormed its way into the corridors of the UN. Capitalism is slowly but surely putting a knife on the things that held the UN together, and soon, it will no longer act as one. Are things about to fall apart?

The signs of the UN falling apart became evident the day George Bush Snr defied the United Nations and attacked Iraq, based on the flimsiest and non-existent excuses gift wrapped in the squalor of lies and deceit in 2003. On this fateful day of 19th March 2003, “the wind that exposes the chicken’s nakedness blew from the back”.

This might not have been the first time for a member state to defy the UN, but this ranks as one of the most controversial and widely known with monumental consequences. In cultural terms, this defiance was sacrilegious. It was like a leader disrobing his emperor in broad day light.

The UN was founded to prevent the horrors of the holocaust and similar wars. It is sad that it is the same founding members and the triggers for the foundation who are busy dismantling the UN brick by brick. They are busy eroding its credibility, diluting its supposed neutrality, and perceived fairness slowly but surely. Soon, the world will return to its jungle bestiality of survival of the fittest and operating on the diet of “might is right” as we already see.

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about the things that matter” (MLK).

Don’t forget to turn the lights out when you leave the room.