THE inability of the UN to facilitate the primary goal set out in its hopeful charter nearly eight decades ago, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, stands out in stark relief every time failure greets its efforts to halt ongoing hostilities. That depressing pattern was established not long after the UN was set up in 1945.

It has, since then, vastly expanded in terms of both membership and subsidiary or affiliated organisations, many of which can be credited with worthy achievements in tricky environments — alongside grave inadequacies that reflect structural problems or funding deficiencies. Nor can anyone ignore the abuse of the UN as a platform for aggression, as in the case of the first major post-World War II conflagration, the Korean War, an ideologically motivated US-led intervention that was technically a UN operation.

Half a century later, a similar effort to obtain the UN Security Council’s imprimatur for unwarranted aggression against Iraq fell short of US expectations. There can be little doubt, though, that the way the UNSC is constituted militates against the UN’s purported mission “to maintain international peace and security”. Talk of reform often focuses on expanding and/ or restructuring the UNSC’s permanent membership, which excludes the Global South.

India is one of the main contenders, alongside the likes of Brazil and Nigeria. The UK boasted a vast empire in 1945, but is barely able to govern itself 80 years later; besides, its foreign policy inclinations are barely distinguishable from those of the US. France is marginally more independent, but not necessarily an adequate representative of Europe.

The UNSC’s composition militates against the UN’s stated mission.

Apart from a membership reshuffle, it is vital to restrict or, better still, abolish the veto power of permanent members. Permitting its exercise becomes particularly absurd when one or more of these members are themselves engaged in unjustified hostilities or other violations of the UN Charter, or closely allied with an offensive belligerent. For instance, what are the chances of a binding resolution aimed at halting Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, or castigating China for violating the rights of its Uighur and Tibetan minorities? And the US, naturally, has protected Israel against even mild reprimands.

But even worthwhile resolutions that are passed don’t resolve anything if they are ignored by the relevant parties. They are dug out every now and then for rhetorical purposes, then returned to the archival graveyard that is destined to be their final resting place. The goals portended in efforts led by other UN bodies on sustainable development, climate change or the environment often meet a similar fate. Their implementation remains an aspiration.

Empowering resolutions passed by, say, a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly — weighted according to population — might be a possible alternative to tussles in the UNSC. It was alarming, though, to see some of the loudest voices in the assembly’s 79th session last month representing a council of war rather than recipes for peace. If Benjamin Netanyahu was, predictably, the worst offender, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov wasn’t far behind, and both Pakistan’s prime minister and India’s foreign minister contributed to the antagonistic atmosphere. Some of the wisest speeches were made by South American leaders. Chile’s Gabriel Boric, for instance. declared: “I refuse to choose between the terror of Hamas or the genocide carried out by Netanyahu’s Israel; we have no reason to choose between barbarities — I choose humanity.”

That, ultimately, is what the UN is supposed to be all about. It has frequently faltered, but its shortfalls and demonstrable impotence at crucial junctures testify not to its irrelevance but to its structural deficiencies. In his role as secretary-general, former Portuguese PM António Guterres has generally tended to be wise. He probably did not expect to be declared persona non grata by a member state, let alone that only 104 nations would leap to his defence in an initiative laudably led by Chile. But then, Israel has never been a fan of advocates for human rights or peace, as demonstrated by its crusade against UN peacekeepers in Lebanon and the UN Relief and Works Agency that has helped to sustain Palestinian refugees since 1948.

Perhaps the best way of halting Israel’s genocidal ambitions would be the kind of international boycott, divestment and sanctions that persuaded an earlier apartheid state to opt for a non-racial democracy. Alternatively, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris could stop providing Israel with the means to perpetrate the evil that has expanded from Gaza to the West Bank and Lebanon, with Iran in the crosshairs. In all too many ways, the UN’s relevance depends on which way the US goes, regardless of who wins next month’s presidential election.

mahir.dawn@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, October 16th, 2024