Today is the United Nations Day. The intergovernmental organisation came into existence on October 24, 1945 after 29 nations had ratified the Charter essentially for maintaining worldwide peace and security; Developing relations among nations; fostering cooperation between nations in order to solve economic, social, cultural or humanitarian problems and resolve all international issues of dispute.
On April 1, 1945, an Easter Sunday, the bloodiest Battle of Okinawa, last of all major World War II battles, had been fought. The US Navy’s Fifth Fleet and more than 180,000 US Army and US Marine Corps troops descended on the Pacific island of Okinawa for a final push towards Japan. The invasion was part of ‘Operation Iceberg', a complex plan to occupy the Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa was a part. Interestingly on this day, holed up in a bunker under his headquarters in Berlin, Adolf Hitler committed suicide. He first swallowed a cyanide capsule and then shot himself in the head. Soon after this, Germany surrendered to the Allied forces unconditionally, ending Hitler's dreams of a '1,000-year’ Reich.
The biggest war having been over, the 26 nations at war with the Axis powers congregated in Washington to sign the Declaration of the United Nations endorsing the Atlantic Charterpledging to use their resources against the Axis. At the Quebec Conference, a draft of declaration was prepared that for ‘a general international organisation based on the principle sovereign equality of all nations'. It was issued after a Foreign Ministers Conference in Moscow in October 1943. In November 1943, Roosevelt, while meeting Stalin in Tehran, proposed an international organisation comprising an assembly of all member states and a 10-member executive committee to discuss social and economic issues. The United States, Great Britain, Soviet Union and China would enforce peace as ‘the four policemen'. Meanwhile a set of task-oriented organisations: the Food and Agricultural Organisation, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Civil Aviation Organisation had been set up.
In August-September 1944, they drafted the charter of a post-war international organisation based on the principle of collective security. Voting procedures and the veto power of permanent members of the Security Council were finalised at the Yalta Conference in 1945 when Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that the veto would not prevent discussions by the Security Council. By June 1945, the UN had taken full shape. In addition to a General Assembly and a Security Council, the Charter provided for an Economic and Social Council, an International Court of Justice, a Trusteeship Council to oversee certain colonial territories and a Secretariat under the Secretary General. The first two pledges of the Charter read thus: to end ‘the scourge of war' and to regain ‘faith in fundamental human rights’.
In 1948, the UN proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights including the right not to be enslaved, to free expression and the right to seek from other countries asylum from persecution.
However, many of the rights expressed remain unrealised even today, particularly to education, equal pay for equal work and nationality.
Unfortunately, the UN General Assembly, though projected as a prominent stage, is virtually powerless today. Every autumn, the General Assembly sessions open creating the stage for Presidents and Prime Ministers to give speeches that can be soaring or clichéd; or they can deliver long, incoherent tirades such as the one by the late Libyan strongman Qaddafi in 2009.The event is colossally starry, but critics contend that it is little more than a glorified gabfest. Hundreds of resolutions are introduced annually. But sadly nothing is legally binding. Though in principle, all nations have equal voice, the genuine power resides elsewhere. The big, wealthy countries call all shots.
The Security Council has 15 members, but the big permanent five -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States resolve all contentious issues as suits them best. Hence, the so-called powerful Security Council is actually a paralysed body when it comes to integrity of decision making. However, by and large, the Council is the UN’s most powerful arm as it can impose sanctions against erring nations. It had punished Iran and Libya heavily. All the same, it is the most anachronistic part of the UN. Its five permanent members are the victors of World War II. The other 10 weak members are elected for only two-year terms. Efforts to expand the permanent membership of the Council by including rising powers such as India, Japan and Germany have invariably been stymied. Any member of the permanent five can veto any measure. Each has unfailingly used this power to protect it and allies. Since 1990, the US has vetoed Council resolutions 16 times, mostly concerning Israeli-Palestinian relations; Russia 13 times, including four times over Syria. Although the Charter allows the General Assembly to act if, because of a veto, international peace and security are threatened, it is rarely done.
The Security Council’s job is to maintain international peace. But its ability to do so has been severely constrained in recent years, mainly due to bitter divisions between Russia and the West. Not surprisingly therefore, the Council has been feckless in the face of major conflicts, particularly those in which permanent members have a stake. Most recently, its starkest failure has been the handling of the conflict in Syria, with Russia backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the United States, Britain and France supporting some opposition groups. The Council has not only failed to halt the fighting but has also been unable to ensure the delivery of food aid and the safety of medical workers. Similarly North Korea, an ally of China, has repeatedly ignored UN prohibitions against conducting nuclear tests.
The UN Secretary General has a huge global reach, but his role is considered vague and fleeting because of lack of jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The Charter, when keenly observed, appears vague in defining the duties of the Secretary General. He or she is expected to show no favouritism to any particular country, but the Secretary General turns puppet to wealthy, powerful members as his office is largely dependent on the funding and the good will of these nations. The Security Council, notably the permanent five, chooses the Secretary General, by secret ballot to serve a maximum of two five-year terms. This makes it rather difficult for the Secretary General to play his role independently as the P5 keeps watch to know if he or she is doing anything against their interests. Further, the Secretary General has no army to deploy. If the highest office-holder is made truly independent, he or she could summon warring parties to the peace table and have all issues resolved instantly.
The 10-year tenure of current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has repeatedly revealed the limits of his authority. For example, Ban was persuaded in vain for two years in a row to chasten powerful countries whose military forces had killed and maimed children. Coincidentally, not a single woman has become Secretary General since the beginning. All the eight have been men.
The UN’s future looks bleak. No matter who takes over as Secretary General on January 1, he or she will inherit a body facing the unenviable task of demonstrating the UN’s relevance in a world confronting challenges that were inconceivable 70 years ago.
Some questions to know if the UN will ever have influence over the member states:
- Can the Security Council take action against countries that flout international humanitarian law? And can the P5 members look beyond their own interests to find ways to end the ‘scourge of war'?
- Can peacekeeping operations be repaired so the protection of civilians is ensured?
- Can the UN persuade countries to come up with new strategies to handle mass migration?
- Can the Secretary General persuade countries to keep promise if curbing carbon emissions and to help those suffering from the consequences of climate change?
- Can the UN get closer to achieving its founding mandate of making the world a better, more peaceful place?
