How a More Relevant UN Secretary General Can Reduce Global Conflicts

The recent years have seen renewed prospects of regional violence.  Just in Africa, internal repression of Eritrea, disorder in Burundi, and tense standoff between Muslim and Christians in Central African Republic, to name a few, continue to disrupt the normal livelihoods of millions.  One point of commonality among these conflicts has been an acute lack of international intervention to prevent escalation.  The lack of international interest has been most visible in these conflicts’ lack of appearance in global headlines, where international conflicts of choice have largely been those in the Middle East. 

In fact, the only African conflict to receive significant and sustained media attention from global media in the past decade has been the Rwandan Genocide.  Even there, the coverage emphasized the scale of human carnage and the guilt from the international community’s inaction, rather than underlying ethnic and political conflicts that were the root causes of the killings.  The lack of international interest toward such devastating conflicts reflects the lack of desire by major global actors to be involved.  There are a couple of reasons for the lack of international, and especially UN, involvement.

On one hand, the lack of involvement is due to ex-colonial states’ strong motivations to be extricated from continuing patterns of remote political and economic control established by Western colonial administrations.  On the other hand, and more importantly, major powers have little to gain, in terms of national interest, by costly interventions in faraway foreign lands.  Only when benefits to national interests outweigh the corresponding costs would intervention, and the publicizing of such, be viable.  Many conflicts, such as the ones in Eritrea, Central African Republic, and Burundi, do not yet fit the bill for crises worthy of interference.

The lack of national interests for major powers, then, would explain the lack of sustained UN presence in a particular conflict.  UN, in which actions are dedicated by the willingness of its member states, cannot be present in conflict areas without consensus of major powers.  The current structure of the UN, and in particular the Security Council, simply does not allow the Secretary General or any other UN leader to push through forceful directives without explicit agreement by the major powers. 

Indeed, from wars to national independence to intra-national violence, the UN of the past has shown itself to be incapable of acting outside influence of major powers.  This is not only due to structural constraints of the organization, but also inherently caused by the Secretary General’s lack of assertiveness in pursuing a more independent agenda.  The contemporary world, however, is not yet used to a more independent UN.  It is not yet used to an assertive Secretary General capable of projecting his/her own influence. 

As a new kind of Secretary General appears, the world will need to react differently to a new UN.  As the UN’s standings in the global political stage become more prominent, more resources will need to be devoted to the study of the UN and its leadership.  National governments will need to put in greater efforts to research and analyze strategies to “deal with the UN.”  The Secretary General will face more of not only public, but also academic and government scrutiny.  In this context, the UN will become a source of policy development and leadership. 

As the Secretary General creates and seeks to implement his/her own solutions to what s/he views as the world’s most pressing challenges, countries will increasingly contemplate the consequences of differing reactions.  Some will actively align with the Secretary General by providing military, financial, and other resources.  They will do so in bids to have their domestic agenda set up for resolution on the international stage.  No longer will nations devise resolutions and then compel the UN to support.  Nations will have to lobby the UN to act in what they see as favorable ways.

Additionally, if the Secretary General takes the lead in conflict resolution, a more supra-national, humanitarian-focused prioritization will emerge.  Such prioritization will likely deter all states from undertaking violent domestic agendas.  Such violence has not been acted upon in the past due to unimportance to major power’s national interests.  Yet, if governments understand the Secretary General’s capabilities to intervene based on sheer damages to civilian life, it is more likely that they will limit any kind of violence at home for fear of negative UN attention.  There will be an advent of a less violence-filled world. 

While speculative, a different international community can emerge due to a “stronger” Secretary General.  By shifting away from merely voicing over foreign policies of leading world powers, the Secretary General can turn the UN into an independent institution that proactively provide solutions to a range of pertinent international issues.  The UN will have its distinctive political platform, separate from that of any nation.  That platform will restrain the radical behaviors of any national actors while preventing the UN from continued irrelevancy as puppet of member states.  All this can begin with a more qualified, disciplined Secretary General.