The U.N. 80 years on: Does it still work?

As the Israeli attempt to destroy Gaza through genocide rolls relentlessly on, the purpose and function of the United Nations is more in question than at any time since the Cold War ended. But why is it like this, and what can be done?

In 1945 as one of the most harrowing chapters of humanity’s history drew to its close in the dying days of World War Two, representatives of Allied Governments met to convene a meeting that would form the United Nations. The initial purpose of the United Nations was to prevent a third world war and any other major international disputes that might arise. Unlike its failed predecessor, this world body would have the participation of the United States and there would be a means to agree to use military force to end conflicts that could be ended through diplomacy via a vote of the newly formed United Nations Security Council.

It sounded like lessons had been learnt. A world weary of six years of unprecedented war, just starting to hear about the hellholes that were the extermination camps and yet to be introduced to the worst weapon man has ever conceived, certainly hoped so. But 80 years since it was first formed, the United Nations Security Council is in bad need of an overhaul. The problem is none of the permanent five would ever agree to have their veto power taken away – in fact in their desperation to keep it, a rare moment of co-operation might be witnessed. Nor is it likely that the wider world would want to give up the opportunity to be one of the ten temporary members.

And there the crux of the problem lies. All of the nations have wielded their veto power at some point or another – the French when New Zealand tried to take them to the cleaners over the Rainbow Warrior bombing; the U.S. many times to stop condemnation of Israel or American foreign policy; Russia when challenged on their human rights record and propensity for propping up dicatorships such as the Al-Assad regime in Syria, Russian aggression in Ukraine and China regarding North Korean weapons of mass destruction.

What would it take for something constructive to happen? Possibly an overwhelming vote of the General Assembly – at least 2/3 but possibly up to 4/5 of all member nations would need to vote in favour of some sort of measure. What sort of measure would that be? Could the G.A. agree on a measure? Probably, but it would undergo many changes, involve a huge number of hours spent trying to thrash out the provisions, whilst hoping no international catastrophe blows up in the interim.

And even then, would the Security Council listen? Not necessarily. Never underestimate the power of entrenched interests in the major capitals of the world, both economic and political who will go to any means they can get away with things that only favour their profit margins. This is especially so of the military industrial complex, which needs a war or two to be going on so it can pedal armaments. All five of the permanent powers, and several powerful nations such as Italy, Germany and Israel are guilty of having tried to play the council in order to continue activities that had been brought into question.

Also, let us not underestimate the importance of how the United Nations is funded and who funds it. The chart below from 2019 shows how the U.N. was funded that year.

As the biggest contributor to the United Nations, no one should be very surprised that America has significant say – not just at Security Council level – about priorities. But let us note the contributions from China, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Australia and Russia.

Not surprisingly with the rhetoric of U.S. President Donald Trump, there is significant angst about the fact that the U.S. pays nearly 1/4 of the entire U.N. budget at $674 million+ per annum. I am of the belief that the other O.E.C.D. nations should pay a bigger portion.

As a New Zealander who supports a bigger budget for foreign policy and aid, I do not mind if we ratchet up our contribution. Our annual fee is about U.S.$10.3 million and is significantly less than 1% of the total U.N. budget. As one of the wealthier nations in the U.N. membership, I believe we can afford to pay 0.5%, which would see our annual contribution increase to about U.S.$18 million.

Sometimes history comes to play in ways that frustrate all. A good example is Japan’s wartime history and the reluctance of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to acknowledge it. The failure of Japanese Prime Ministers to issue a full apology for the numerous atrocities committed, has frustrated Washington as an ally. It has also frustrated China as a rival power in east Asia, which Japan partially occupied and made to suffer appalling atrocities during World War 2. Subsequently co-operation on the thorny subject of North Korea is more hindered than it might otherwise be.

But let us assume an overwhelming majority of U.N. General Assembly members vote for a comprehensive reform of the Security Council – we will say 3/4 of nations are in favour. A working group with representatives from every geographical region is formed. Each region is asked to complete a survey using common questions querying what they think of the U.N.S.C., its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. The data gathered is broken down into broad themes, which become the basis of a reform plan. How that might take shape, your guess as the reader is very likely as good as mine.

My own preferences are

• For every geographical region to have a permanent Security Council member; reduce the non-permanent number to 8 – I would add Australia in the South Pacific, South Africa and Brazil
• The 8 permanent members and 8 non-permanent members split the U.N.S.C. costs equally
• For United Nations Security Council Resolutions to only need 4/5 of the permanent members to vote YES to pass
• For any nation that ignores three consecutive Resolutions to have a suspension period of several months; for prolonged ignorance an expulsion period of 2 years
• To debate anything under urgency that has 2/3 or better General Assembly support

Or is the United Nations Security Council just doomed to be a modern day League of Nations? We all know what happened to that…