Suggestions for a More Effective UN as the Era of Major Power Wars Returns
For the UN to become an independent force capable of devising and implementing its own agendas, the organization needs to step above national interests. To do so, it must aggressively push for compromises that align with the interests of all sides in any particular conflict. Only with such initiative-taking can the UN not succumb to one-sidedness when conveying international legitimacy. The task of the UN is not to offer moral high ground to any particular side, but to establish objective forums to discuss how conflicts can be halted in a positive-sum fashion.
While it is unfortunate that past experiences of the UN offer little in terms of positive examples of how this can be done, the organization, by emphasizing how it can become a neutral arbitrator among warring parties, can provide a mediating role that no nation-state, with self-interest at heart, can replace. The neutral position of the UN may be at the heart of how the organization can regain legitimacy, by becoming a go-to place for those marred in conflicts to seek an internationally recognized way toward lasting peace.
Of course, it is difficult for the UN to appear neutral in these conflicts. In any conflict, the international community will have ideas about which side is “right” and which is “wrong.” As the representation of the international community, the UN is expected to behave in ways that adhere to the beliefs of the majority. If the UN hastily declares neutrality, its credibility as the representation of international will would be at risk. Repeatedly resorting to neutrality may lead to the UN becoming more marginalized in international decision-making.
Yet, the potential benefits of remaining neutral in conflicts can justify the risk of marginalization. Neutrality allows the UN to be seen as the unbiased, humanitarian-minded authority on international conflict resolution. Reducing violence with compromises from the get-go would save tens of thousands of combatant and civilian lives while preventing millions in economic damages. Benefits to people in conflict zones allow the UN to command moral high ground much more prominently than it would by judging whose position is more “correct.”
The UN should emphasize this point of minimizing conflict-led damages when declaring its willingness to lead. Leadership to achieve compromise through neutral mediation is based on the need to reduce the suffering of the people. This is a position that member states often ignore as they seek greater selfish gains in conflict. By taking leadership in conflict resolution through neutrality, the UN justifies its greater involvement in reaching conflict-ending compromises. Having the willingness and moral justification to lead does not automatically make the UN the leader in global conflict resolution. Having the most effective means is just as essential. It is no understatement that the UN is a tangle of national power-play, where major powers jostle to have their actions labeled as internationally acceptable. As such, creating UN resolutions that are acceptable to all sides requires thinking out of the box.
For the UN to be an unbiased and innovative leader, it would be unfruitful if it cannot perceive the seriousness of humanitarian crises. As such, it must possess the uncanny ability to predict the emergence of conflicts by looking at areas where major powers ignore or deliberately encourage conflicts. While major powers prioritize conflicts where their national interests are most harmed, the UN should work to perceive as most urgent those crises in which the civilian population suffers the greatest harm. History shows that some of the most damaging manmade disasters have been ones where major powers saw little benefits in intervention. Past UN leadership, lacking the ability to act independently, limited UN involvement to little more than verbal condemnation. The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 exemplifies such UN passiveness. As the conflicts mostly targeted domestic populations with little strategic value, major powers remained hesitant to devote resources to prevent deaths and damages.
Thus, it is essential that the UN steps forward and argues for intervention that goes beyond a narrow-minded increase in the national interest. To do so, the UN must undertake structural reforms. Today’s UN is one in which major powers dominate agendas. The major powers provide the vast majority of the UN’s operational budget. Their financial control of the organization is cemented by the ability to refuse continued donation or selectively donate to what they deem to be “worthy” projects. Moreover, the five permanent members of the Security Council continue to sideline any unfavorable conversations through the use of vetoes. For the UN leadership to truly set agendas for itself, it must overcome both financial and structural constraints.
Structural change in the UN may be achieved by proposing actions undesirable to major powers. If the UN leadership can clearly state the humanitarian necessities of intervening in certain conflicts, any country’s proposal for non-intervention would be a loss of moral high ground for the country. Since major powers utilize the UN as an arena to gain international support, they cannot afford to have such morality-reducing political blunders. Gradually, as major powers continue to grudgingly acquiesce to actions proposed by the UN leadership, it is conceivable that the balance of power in the organization could shift away from member states to the organizational leadership. Any concerted efforts by member states to reverse such trends would likely be met with opposition by a humanitarian-minded general public, further enhancing the UN leadership’s moral authority.
If the UN leads conflict resolutions, a more supra-national, humanitarian-focused prioritization will emerge. Such prioritization will likely deter all states from undertaking violent domestic agendas that were not acted upon in the past due to their unimportance to major powers’ national interests. Yet, if national governments understand the UN’s capacity to intervene, they will limit any kind of violence at home for fear of negative UN attention. A less violence-filled world may arise. While speculative, a different international community can emerge due to a “stronger” UN. By shifting away from merely endorsing foreign policies of leading world powers, the UN can become an independent institution that proactively provides solutions to a range of pertinent international issues. It will have a distinctive political platform, separate from that of any nation. That platform will restrain radical behaviors of any national actors while preventing the UN from continued irrelevancy as puppets of member states. All this can begin with a more active role for the organization.
Of course, it is difficult for the UN to appear neutral in these conflicts. In any conflict, the international community will have ideas about which side is “right” and which is “wrong.” As the representation of the international community, the UN is expected to behave in ways that adhere to the beliefs of the majority. If the UN hastily declares neutrality, its credibility as the representation of international will would be at risk. Repeatedly resorting to neutrality may lead to the UN becoming more marginalized in international decision-making.
Yet, the potential benefits of remaining neutral in conflicts can justify the risk of marginalization. Neutrality allows the UN to be seen as the unbiased, humanitarian-minded authority on international conflict resolution. Reducing violence with compromises from the get-go would save tens of thousands of combatant and civilian lives while preventing millions in economic damages. Benefits to people in conflict zones allow the UN to command moral high ground much more prominently than it would by judging whose position is more “correct.”
The UN should emphasize this point of minimizing conflict-led damages when declaring its willingness to lead. Leadership to achieve compromise through neutral mediation is based on the need to reduce the suffering of the people. This is a position that member states often ignore as they seek greater selfish gains in conflict. By taking leadership in conflict resolution through neutrality, the UN justifies its greater involvement in reaching conflict-ending compromises. Having the willingness and moral justification to lead does not automatically make the UN the leader in global conflict resolution. Having the most effective means is just as essential. It is no understatement that the UN is a tangle of national power-play, where major powers jostle to have their actions labeled as internationally acceptable. As such, creating UN resolutions that are acceptable to all sides requires thinking out of the box.
For the UN to be an unbiased and innovative leader, it would be unfruitful if it cannot perceive the seriousness of humanitarian crises. As such, it must possess the uncanny ability to predict the emergence of conflicts by looking at areas where major powers ignore or deliberately encourage conflicts. While major powers prioritize conflicts where their national interests are most harmed, the UN should work to perceive as most urgent those crises in which the civilian population suffers the greatest harm. History shows that some of the most damaging manmade disasters have been ones where major powers saw little benefits in intervention. Past UN leadership, lacking the ability to act independently, limited UN involvement to little more than verbal condemnation. The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 exemplifies such UN passiveness. As the conflicts mostly targeted domestic populations with little strategic value, major powers remained hesitant to devote resources to prevent deaths and damages.
Thus, it is essential that the UN steps forward and argues for intervention that goes beyond a narrow-minded increase in the national interest. To do so, the UN must undertake structural reforms. Today’s UN is one in which major powers dominate agendas. The major powers provide the vast majority of the UN’s operational budget. Their financial control of the organization is cemented by the ability to refuse continued donation or selectively donate to what they deem to be “worthy” projects. Moreover, the five permanent members of the Security Council continue to sideline any unfavorable conversations through the use of vetoes. For the UN leadership to truly set agendas for itself, it must overcome both financial and structural constraints.
Structural change in the UN may be achieved by proposing actions undesirable to major powers. If the UN leadership can clearly state the humanitarian necessities of intervening in certain conflicts, any country’s proposal for non-intervention would be a loss of moral high ground for the country. Since major powers utilize the UN as an arena to gain international support, they cannot afford to have such morality-reducing political blunders. Gradually, as major powers continue to grudgingly acquiesce to actions proposed by the UN leadership, it is conceivable that the balance of power in the organization could shift away from member states to the organizational leadership. Any concerted efforts by member states to reverse such trends would likely be met with opposition by a humanitarian-minded general public, further enhancing the UN leadership’s moral authority.
If the UN leads conflict resolutions, a more supra-national, humanitarian-focused prioritization will emerge. Such prioritization will likely deter all states from undertaking violent domestic agendas that were not acted upon in the past due to their unimportance to major powers’ national interests. Yet, if national governments understand the UN’s capacity to intervene, they will limit any kind of violence at home for fear of negative UN attention. A less violence-filled world may arise. While speculative, a different international community can emerge due to a “stronger” UN. By shifting away from merely endorsing foreign policies of leading world powers, the UN can become an independent institution that proactively provides solutions to a range of pertinent international issues. It will have a distinctive political platform, separate from that of any nation. That platform will restrain radical behaviors of any national actors while preventing the UN from continued irrelevancy as puppets of member states. All this can begin with a more active role for the organization.
Comments
Post a Comment