Has the United Nations failed us?

We humans are complex beings; ones that cannot be cramped into labelled boxes, but, at times, given the discourse of the post-modern world, one can’t help but feel perhaps we aren’t as special as we think. After all, we hunger after the same carnal desires, crave similar abstractness, scrimmage for a particular objective – the attainment of power. Impinging on a broad spectrum approach, if the same power dynamics, transformation, and the related lust are applied to the United Nations (UN) – the concept and the organisation – the reality of the ideology and the structure may dawn upon us common folk.

There has never been a sole reason which could identify how and why humans establish certain relations and make peculiar connections. We make acquaintances and often classify a few of them as friends. We don’t necessarily fancy all the people we interact with but the connection established with some of them cannot be severed.

Interestingly, the United Nations works in the same manner. No single state can claim to have peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with all 193 member states. After the treaty of Westphalia led Huntington’s West to global dominance, it became increasingly evident that the success of a region translates into the success of the nations which make it up. Some have each other’s backs – China and Pakistan – but their relation is based on mutual interests. Likewise, regional blocs such as the SAARC are formed solely due to regional contingencies.

The unanimous efforts in order to diffuse a third world war, making and keeping peace in volatile conflict zones, grants and efforts to eradicate world hunger, ensuring basic human rights, safeguarding self-determination, and various efforts prove that there is unity in the UN – in a liberal sense.

But when it comes to state behaviour, there is no unity – only stakes. Stakes and interests drive the UN. The more power a state exercises, the more states it unites with itself.

Hauntingly similar to humans, states portray, convey, and act upon abstract notions; they crave power. Most liberal world powers work towards the embodiment of humanitarian moral and social conduct, as outlined in the Geneva Convention to attain influence. In the face of anarchy, realist states achieve it through militarism and fortification. The United Nations and her member states are a perfect example of the coexistence of various theories in the post-modern world. Various peace-keeping missions under UNMISS form a major part of the international peace-keeping watchdog; what runs side by side is a major humanitarian crisis in Syria– a case in which the question of humanitarian aid continues to be vetoed in the UN Security Council purely due to political alliances.

The thirst for power, the hunger for influence and the nationalist urges to be the greatest country ever is the primal nature of every state.

The United Nations isn’t flawed – it’s just poignantly human.

We expect too much from the UN as an organisation. We forget that it was established by the winning bloc of a world war, stood by and silently watched the cold war happen, and is described as “working against itself” by its top officials due to its sheer size. The UN has also come under fire for its workers committing inhumane acts against the people they vow to protect, the top-dogs lobby against structural reforms, and the diplomatic processes are used to hinder the peace process.

The UN is merely an organisation and akin to any other corporate setting, the biggest donators – due to having a greater stake, also have a greater say. The United States has always been one of the biggest financial contributors to the UN. This is one of the reasons that the USA was able to do what it did in the Middle East – with plenty of verbal opposition but not enough action to stop it.

Despite its shortcomings UN still does all that it can to help those in need around the world – or at the least – acknowledges the need to do so.

Kashmir’s case is applicable in this context; in terms of market economy and industrial progress, India is a relatively powerful state. The US and Europe have high stakes in the extremism-plagued country and thus, Pakistan’s case of Kashmir’s plebiscite isn’t pursed by the global powers with nearly as much vigour as it should.

The UN isn’t a puppet organisation, it’s just an organisation with beneficiaries, stakes, capital, alliances, backstabbers, progressive designs, oppositions, yes-men, dreamers, and fools.

Not having conflicts does not ensure a system of no injustice, nor does it mean that existing political systems such as colonialism, regionalism, nationalism and capitalism would stop existing. There will still be people who are deprived and there will be people who would want to gain influence. If there were no direct violence, there would still be structural violence. According to Johan Galtung, peace and conflict are two separate concepts - one can and does exist without the other. Hence, conflict does not breed peace. The UN – in its core ideology – to maintain world peace is justified.

That said, while states may advocate for international peace, their priority will always be their own nation and then their region. The UN advocates for international peace but it can only do so much with its budget generated mainly from the first world and its members being influenced by the throes of nationalism.

No, the organisation is not a failure– our history books not being tainted by a third world war is largely due to it but perhaps relying on the moral compass of states and the powerful elite who dominate global politics is a lie that we have been telling ourselves.

That being said despite its flaws, the UN inspires hope for a peaceful existence and development of the less fortunate states would perhaps become much slower or non-existent if the organisation stopped existing. And the eradication of hope is a tragedy that we —global citizens living in a pandemic ridden world — cannot afford. A united world may not be in our future but the UN helps us hope that it can be.