Keeping Up Appearances

"The UN was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell." 

These words by Swedish diplomat Dag Hammarskjold, second Secretary-General of the United Nations, are often repeated as the informal mission statement of the United Nations.

But, to the frustration of many of us, it is not capable today of saving Ukrainians from the hell that they are currently suffering at the hands of the Russian Federation.

The United Nations was set up after the second world war to try to prevent a third world war in a nuclear age when one small misstep could annihilate humanity.

In that respect, it has proven successful.

However, we must bear in mind that in all cases, legally binding mandates can only be passed by the Security Council in which the five permanent members – Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States – all have a veto. And this Council has been divided for most of its history and continues to be so today as two veto wielding members – Russia and China – usually act against the other three.

Further limiting action is the fact that the Secretary-General cannot issue mandates or act independently of the Security Council.

This leaves the Organization in a bind.

While Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been vocal against the Russian invasion of and the carnage that we are witnessing, he is powerless to do anything about it except speak from whatever podium is handy.

As expected by international observers, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution that deplored its invasion of Ukraine and called for it to withdraw military forces. 

Russia was the only country on the Security Council that blocked the resolution, exposing the limited leverage the U.N. has over the world’s most powerful countries.

While the General Assembly passed a similar resolution against Russia, it is not legally binding, nor does it provide the Secretariat with the resources or mandate to take any action.

Richard Gowan of the New York-based International Crisis Group which monitors the UN said the Security Council has “very limited leverage in this situation.”

Mr Gowan told Express.co.uk: “The blunt reality is that Russia's veto power means the Council cannot play a decisive role here. And if Putin cared about the UN Charter or diplomatic debates in New York, he wouldn't have invaded Ukraine in the first place.

“Russia enjoys having power in the Security Council, but doesn't feel it has to respect it.” 

He added: “I think the Council will mainly be a platform for the US and its allies to trade rhetorical barbs with Russia while the war goes on.”

This is leading many to question if the United Nations is fit for purpose, and it is increasingly difficult to come up with a positive response.

The world needs a forum in which political, social, and security problems can be discussed peacefully, and solutions found short of war. It also needs competent specialized organizations free of political maneuverings to provide essential solutions to transborder problems – from pandemics to climate change, migration of refugees to the management of air travel. 

During the past two years we have witnessed a very questionable performance by some of these agencies.

The World Health Organization has been criticized by many for its poor management of the Covid pandemic, with its Director General accused by some of bending too much in China’s favor. 

Yet, these agencies are the only bodies that bring the global community together to discuss major problems and develop viable solutions.

So yes, I am of the school that says if the United Nations did not exist, it would have to be invented.

But invented differently.

The veto power of the Security Council would have to change, and governments begin to think of national sovereignty in a 21st Century context rather than a 19th Century one. A context in which most of our activities have transborder implications and where no one country alone can solve them.

The Secretary-General would have to have a strong mandate, a mobile armed force that could be dispatched to trouble zones, and solid budget to undertake more coercive actions when world peace is at stake.

Can it be done?

I don’t think that many leaders are willing to give up national sovereignty to an international organization on critical political and security issues. 

Nor are the permanent members of the Security Council ready to give up their veto power and submit themselves as a matter of international law to a majority vote of the General Assembly without some way of managing the outcome.

Absent this, the United Nations will continue to be condemned and limited to keep up appearances while many people suffer and die in armed conflicts.

Keep reading: Habemus Papam

Edición: Laura Espejo