80 years ago, on October 24, 1945, the UN Charter came into force, approved four months earlier in San Francisco. Therefore, this date in October is celebrated annually as United Nations Day.
I refer to the political part of the organization. Specialized agencies, for example FAO, UNESCO, WHO, ILO and all others, emerged at different times. Each has its own history, as well as its specific governance structures, independent of the authority of the Secretary General (SG). Likewise, over time, special programs and funds emerged, such as PAM, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA and several others, an extensive list of acronyms. These programs and funds are headed by individuals chosen by the SG, in most cases in response to pressure exerted by some more powerful States. They do not belong to the same division that encompasses specialized agencies.
The system is in crisis. But, if the UN did not exist, it would be necessary, even in today’s confusing days, to invent it. It’s an oft-repeated idea.
The United Nations exists, it is not necessary to carry out any creative exercise. But President Xi Jinping, who also contributes to the marginalization of the UN and wants to take advantage of this, is now proposing an alternative system, inspired by his vision of China’s central role in the world. He had already proposed a Global Development Initiative, another on international security and also one that he called the Global Initiative on Civilization. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which took place less than two months ago, Xi completed the framework and proposed the missing initiative on global governance. In other words, about the principles that should regulate relations between States. When I say that it completed the picture, I am referring to four fundamental pillars of the UN, development, peace, human dignity and now, politics.
Xi’s proposal on international governance is little more than a reaffirmation of the content of the United Nations Charter in other words. The five basic principles it proposes on global governance are contained in the Charter. Xi refers to respect for the sovereignty of each State, including retrograde and dictatorial regimes; to subordination to the rules of international law; to the defense of multilateralism and the role of the United Nations, something that China itself does not practice when it does not suit it; to the value of people, who must be the main concern in political matters; and the need to obtain concrete results in solving global problems. There is certainly no significant disagreement with these ideas. The Chinese initiative is basically a political maneuver.
The problem is that these principles are often ignored by several Member States, starting with great powers such as China, Russia and the United States of America and by States outside international law, such as North Korea or Israel.
Thus, the United Nations ceases to be the central forum for international relations, discussion and resolution of major conflicts. The blame lies with certain Member States, and, in particular, the poor functioning and lack of representation of the Security Council (SC). The UN has been completely marginalized in the cases of Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar, the end of the embargo against Cuba and so on. However, the real problem lies in the CS: without a Council that represents the realities of the 21st century, the political UN will continue to live in the past and condemned to wither away.
The plan that President Donald Trump adopted in relation to the dramatic crisis in Gaza – a vague plan that is practically impossible to carry out at its key points – does not mention the UN or attribute any type of responsibility to it. Even if a hypothesis that has not yet been confirmed is discussed in the Security Council, the various points imposed by President Trump do not take into account the experience accumulated in similar situations. It is a plan that was not negotiated by the interested parties – Israel and Palestine –, in other words, it did not follow a fundamental procedure in terms of peacebuilding. I fear that little will be achieved beyond the release of the hostages still alive, the freedom of a number of prisoners held in Israel and a temporary and insufficient humanitarian opening in view of the absolutely basic needs of the civilians still surviving in Gaza.
The SG is trying to implement a process of reform of the organization, which it has called UN80. In reality, the effort is little more than a bureaucratic response to the organization’s financial crisis. Instead of insisting, day and night, on the defaulting States to pay on time the quotas and mandatory contributions they owe, and of clearly defining what justifies the existence of the UN, the SG decided to follow the option that best suits certain leaders and their ministries of finance: eliminate jobs, reduce the scope and functioning of missions on the ground, transfer services to cities where the cost of living is lower than in New York or Geneva. The refrain is “do less with fewer resources”. In fact, it should be another: “Making peace and promoting human dignity require the contribution of everyone and respect for the courageous voice of the UN”. This assertion is the only one that is coherent with the defense of international cooperation and multilateralism. This is what I learned and applied over decades.
International security advisor.
Former UN Deputy Secretary-General
The post The future requires political courage, strategic vision and a UN that is respected appeared first on Veritas News.
