The Role of the UN Revisited: The Necessary Characters for It to be Taken Seriously

The UN can become prominent only when it is willing to step above national interests.  To do so, it must aggressively push for compromises that align with 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.  In other words, its task 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.

Neutral platforms would change the nature of conflict, from one that seeks a zero-sum, winner-takes-all result for any one side, to one that encourages partial continuation of conflict only as bargaining chips for negotiated compromises on the discussion table.  Of course, it is difficult for the UN to appear neutral in international conflicts.  In any conflict, the international community will have ideas about which side is “right” and which is “wrong.”  As representation of the international community, the UN is expected to behave in ways that adhere to belief of the majority. 

Yet, the potential benefits of remaining neutral in conflicts can justify the risk of marginalization.  To be specific, 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.  The benefits to people in conflict zones allow the UN to command moral high grounds much more prominent than determining whose position is more “correct” in the conflict. 

Having the willingness and moral justification to lead does not automatically make the UN the global leader in 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 for ability 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.  Yet, in the past the UN provided formulaic “Band-Aid” solutions to contain conflicts without reducing biases that led to conflict in the first place. 

Usually, such solutions involve creation of peacekeeping missions that separate combatants through buffer zones, but without mechanism for persistent dialogues that tackle the roots of conflict.  If anything, the ineffective use of peacekeepers has exacerbated underlying conflict and reduced the authority of the UN in the conflict zone.  In resolving the conflicts, such “Band-Aid” solutions are obviously not enough.  The UN needs to provide alternative methodologies that can go beyond the ineffective “peacekeeping + lengthy dialogue” formula. 

To be an unbiased and innovative leader, the UN must possess the uncanny ability to predict the emergence of conflicts by looking at areas where major powers ignore or deliberate encourage conflicts.  While major powers prioritize conflicts where their national interests are most harmed, the UN must perceive as most urgent those crises in which civilian population suffers the greatest harm.  History shows that some of the most damaging man-made disasters have been ones where major powers saw little benefits in intervention.  When the conflicts mostly targeted domestic populations, major powers remained hesitant on devoting resources to prevent deaths and damages. 

Thus, it becomes essential that the UN steps forward and argues for intervention that goes beyond narrow-minded increase of national interests.  In practice, there needs to become persistent enough for structural reform of the UN.  Today’s UN is one in which major powers dominate the agenda of action.  The major powers, on one hand, 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 only projects that is seen to be worthy of investment. 

On the other hand, the five permanent members of the Security Council continue to sideline any unfavorable conversations through use of vetoes.  For the UN to truly set its own agendas, both the financial and structural constraints must be overcome.  Interestingly, structural change in the UN may be brought about by proposing actions contrary to what are desired by the major powers.  If humanitarian necessities of intervening in certain conflicts are clearly stated, any major power’s proposal to the contrary would be a loss of moral high ground. 

Since major powers utilize the UN as an arena to gain international support, they cannot afford to have political blunders caused by such morality-reducing opposition to humanitarian-based agendas.  Gradually, as the major powers continue to grudgingly acquiesce to actions proposed by the UN itself, it is conceivable that the balance of power in the organization will shift away from member states to the organizational leadership.  Any concerted efforts by member states to reverse such trend would likely be met with opposition by a humanitarian-minded general public and further enhance the moral authority of the UN.