UN on the Sidelines of the Russo-Ukrainian War: Reaffirming the Organization's Ineffectiveness in International Conflicts
As the war continues to rage on in Ukraine, the international community has used existing international forums to hash out exactly how to respond to the escalating violence. One of these forums is the UN. Certainly, the organization has so far seen some actions, including strong words from the secretary-general in condemning the war itself as well as resolutions that frame the war as a violation of international norms and humanitarian principles on the part of Russia. Yet, overall, the UN has been largely absent in the war, compared to the EU and NATO.
To be fair, over the past decades, the UN has gradually established a reputation for humanitarian intervention, chiefly through various efforts to improve standards of living across vast swathes of the developing world. Institutions such as the UN Development Program and committed visions such as Millennium Development Goals have done much to create concrete frameworks by which resources can be used to bring people out of poverty. However, such efforts have been largely limited to places and periods under which a certain degree of peace and political stability prevail.
Under conditions of political instability, such goals and structures often become ineffective, despite the reality that people in conflict are in much greater need of external support. While the need to protect UN personnel is highly understandable in decisions to reduce short-term presence, long-term follow-ups to protect local populations from escalating violence and destruction of livelihoods have been glaringly lacking in many instances. The UN’s relative absence from the frontlines of the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Ukraine, then, mirrors its past lack of international intervention to prevent escalation.
The lack of UN intervention also stems from a lack of sustained international interest in the plight of civilians in conflict zones. 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. The lack of international attention and UN-led work to the resolution of armed conflicts and humanitarian crises in Africa are especially glaring. The internal repression of Eritrea, the disorder in Burundi, and the tense standoff between Muslims and Christians in the Central African Republic (CAR), to name a few, are continuing to disrupt the normal livelihoods of millions, unbeknownst to the general public elsewhere.
The lack of international interest in such devastating conflicts, especially in Africa, reflects a lack of desire by major global actors to be involved. On one hand, ex-colonial states are strongly motivated to extricate themselves from continuing patterns of remote political and economic control established by 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 Africa. Only when benefits to national interest outweigh corresponding costs would intervention, and publicizing of such, be viable.
Many African conflicts, such as those in Eritrea, the CAR, and Burundi, do not fit the bill for crises worthy of intervention. The lack of national interest from the perspective of major powers, then, explains the lack of sustained UN presence in Africa. The UN, whose actions come from the willingness of its member states, cannot be present in conflict areas without the consensus of major powers. The current structure of the UN, and in particular the Security Council, simply does not allow for forceful directives without explicit agreement by major powers.
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, coverage emphasized the scale of human carnage and the guilt from the international community’s inaction, rather than underlying ethnic and political conflicts as root causes of mass killings. While as a bystander in such conflicts, the UN merely faces accusations of intentional neglect, in cases of direct involvement, the UN cannot escape the historical judgment of deliberate bias in favor of some member states. After all, there are ample incentives for member states to use the UN to advance their national interest since UN approval represents international agreement and moral high ground.
The contemporary world is not yet used to a more active UN that projects its influence. As the UN’s standings on the global political stage become more prominent, more resources will be devoted to studying its thinking and actions. National governments will put in greater efforts to research and analyze strategies to “deal with the UN.” The organization will face more not only the public but also academic and government scrutiny. In this context, the UN will become a source of policy development and leadership. As it creates and implements its solutions to what it sees as the world’s most pressing challenges, countries will increasingly contemplate the consequences of differing reactions. Some will actively align with the UN by providing military, financial, and other resources. They will do so to resolve their agendas on the international stage. No longer will nations first devise resolutions and then compel the UN to support them. Nations will have to lobby the UN to act in their national interests.
Under conditions of political instability, such goals and structures often become ineffective, despite the reality that people in conflict are in much greater need of external support. While the need to protect UN personnel is highly understandable in decisions to reduce short-term presence, long-term follow-ups to protect local populations from escalating violence and destruction of livelihoods have been glaringly lacking in many instances. The UN’s relative absence from the frontlines of the unfolding humanitarian disaster in Ukraine, then, mirrors its past lack of international intervention to prevent escalation.
The lack of UN intervention also stems from a lack of sustained international interest in the plight of civilians in conflict zones. 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. The lack of international attention and UN-led work to the resolution of armed conflicts and humanitarian crises in Africa are especially glaring. The internal repression of Eritrea, the disorder in Burundi, and the tense standoff between Muslims and Christians in the Central African Republic (CAR), to name a few, are continuing to disrupt the normal livelihoods of millions, unbeknownst to the general public elsewhere.
The lack of international interest in such devastating conflicts, especially in Africa, reflects a lack of desire by major global actors to be involved. On one hand, ex-colonial states are strongly motivated to extricate themselves from continuing patterns of remote political and economic control established by 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 Africa. Only when benefits to national interest outweigh corresponding costs would intervention, and publicizing of such, be viable.
Many African conflicts, such as those in Eritrea, the CAR, and Burundi, do not fit the bill for crises worthy of intervention. The lack of national interest from the perspective of major powers, then, explains the lack of sustained UN presence in Africa. The UN, whose actions come from the willingness of its member states, cannot be present in conflict areas without the consensus of major powers. The current structure of the UN, and in particular the Security Council, simply does not allow for forceful directives without explicit agreement by major powers.
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, coverage emphasized the scale of human carnage and the guilt from the international community’s inaction, rather than underlying ethnic and political conflicts as root causes of mass killings. While as a bystander in such conflicts, the UN merely faces accusations of intentional neglect, in cases of direct involvement, the UN cannot escape the historical judgment of deliberate bias in favor of some member states. After all, there are ample incentives for member states to use the UN to advance their national interest since UN approval represents international agreement and moral high ground.
The contemporary world is not yet used to a more active UN that projects its influence. As the UN’s standings on the global political stage become more prominent, more resources will be devoted to studying its thinking and actions. National governments will put in greater efforts to research and analyze strategies to “deal with the UN.” The organization will face more not only the public but also academic and government scrutiny. In this context, the UN will become a source of policy development and leadership. As it creates and implements its solutions to what it sees as the world’s most pressing challenges, countries will increasingly contemplate the consequences of differing reactions. Some will actively align with the UN by providing military, financial, and other resources. They will do so to resolve their agendas on the international stage. No longer will nations first devise resolutions and then compel the UN to support them. Nations will have to lobby the UN to act in their national interests.
Comments
Post a Comment