Dis/United Nations: working towards effective multilateralism

As we meet here, the geopolitical barometer shows a world that is polarised, disunited, increasingly confrontational and disinformed.
  The on-going wars in the Ukraine and the Middle East, especially in Gaza, are frightening evidence. They add urgency for overdue reforms of the United Nations to equip it to prevent catastrophes of this kind in the future.
  The alleged dream of 1945 about global peace by three old men, Josef Stalin, an eastern socialist, and Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, two free market leaders from the West has become a nightmare.
  The world of today struggles to find ways how to deal with the global impact of decades of damaging western unilateralism.
  I am fully aware that there will be those who reject this contention as preposterous and declare it a betrayal of the freedom of the 14% of the world’s population that lives in Europe and North America.
  I would argue, western freedom today would be much more secure and sustainable for everyone if Global Governance was based on international law and the principles of the UN Charter.
  What has happened?

UNO – west centric from the outset

To put it simply: In the early days of WWII, the US and the UK had already started in secrecy to identify a model for a world order, once the war was over, ensuring that the lead role would be in the hands of the Anglo-Saxon West.
  The two countries were instrumental in drafting the outline of what eventually became the Charter of the United Nations, as a replacement of the League of Nations, in which the key world powers at the time were either not represented at all (the US) or only temporarily (Russia and Germany). Additionally, the League’s governance structure, with every country having the right of veto, had prevented any successful crisis management.
  Years of US/UK-initiated conferences and lobbying in London, Teheran, La Valetta, Moscow, and, of course, in the US (Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods) cemented the content, structure and locations of the United Nations, as we know it today.
  The result: a UN Charter and institutional structure which the Soviet Union had reluctantly accepted.

• Physical locations of UN bodies were situated, without exception, in either the US or in Western Europe:

• the “political” UN would have its HQ in New York.

• the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, two major UN-lead agencies, responsible for financial and economic policy, would be located in Washington.

• UN Specialised Agencies, Funds and Programmes such as WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, FAO, the World Food Programme, UNDP, UNHCR, and all (!) the others, would have their HQs in the western world.

In other words, from the very beginning, the UN in its entirety, politically, financially, operationally, and geographically, had become squarely west centric.

Cold War – to this day

Post WWII East-West relations were furthermore largely determined by the well-organised, and economically and financially much stronger, US/UK alliance giving the west a clear leadership advantage in decision making over its eastern ally.
  The outbreak of a Cold War was inevitable, and with it a rocky road for multilateralism and the emerging United Nations. This Cold War did not end in Paris in 1990 when 31 countries of Eastern and Western Europe plus the Soviet Union, the US and Canada signed the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, or Freedom Charter, as it has also been called.
  The Cold war was only interrupted by a brief interlude of alleged reconciliation. The crises in Moldova and Georgia (2002), the first NATO enlargement (2004), disagreements in the NATO-Russia Council over the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces (ACFE) led to an early return to cold-war conditions, with the difference that the political temperature of today is well below freezing.
  Let me move from ‘context’ to ‘impact’ of geopolitical dynamics on multilateralism.
  In stating the obvious, I want to believe that the TRT Director-General did not invite me to be diplomatic when presenting facts of impact of 70+ years of skewed international relations and double standards and what this has meant for the global order and the United Nations.

Security Council: Wars and
conflicts neither solved nor prevented

UN decision making, over the years, especially in the Security Council, has been subject, more often than not, to purely geopolitical interests of its members. As a result, most conflicts and wars could neither be prevented nor resolved within the Security Council.
  The confrontations in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Iraq, in Ukraine, in Israel and the Occupied Palestine, in the Arctic and in the North and South China Seas, may serve as examples of a Security Council void of multilateral leadership, and therefore unable to adhere to the tenets of UN Charter law.
  Libya must be added to the list of countries I just mentioned. While the Security Council had agreed to a humanitarian intervention in Libya, individual permanent members of the Council decided to pursue their national interests.
'  Right of might rather than might of right determined their involvement.
  No accountability only impunity in all these conflicts. What we witness is a mockery of international law!
  It reminds of the visionary statement by the Mexican delegate to the UN Conference of 1945 in San Francisco where he observed: “We have created an organisation in which a mouse could be condemned but in which the (five) lions would not be restricted”. How right he was and also how right it was for Turkiye to remind us in 2013 that the “World is bigger than Five!”
  To this, I would add that in 2023, the world is even bigger than governments since  civil society has joined the global debate about our common future as an increasingly  important partner.

General Assembly and
International Court of Justice – ineffective

Let me now turn from the Security Council to the General Assembly.
  The General Assembly votes regularly on subjects of global importance, as it should. Nuclear disarmament, a new international economic order, decolonisation, and human rights are among the topics of concern.
  Year after year such resolutions, often with identical content, are passed by large majorities of member countries demanding change which a minority of countries does not want.
  GA voting in these, and many other areas, has made no difference at all. It has only wasted human and financial resources, and – through the lack of implementation – more often than not, has withheld progress in the non-western world.
  The International Court of Justice, the UN Court, regularly issues legal advisory opinions, unfortunately only rarely requested by the UN Security Council. The Court, in any case, lacks the authority to hold state parties accountable and is therefore largely ineffective.
  It is fair to say that the present state of the UN Legislative (the Security Council and the General Assembly) and the UN Judiciary (the International Court of Justice) are such that they clearly do not meet the institutional requirements for effective Global Governance in the 21^st century.

Positive developments
in the executive branch

The third UN pillar, the Executive (the UN Secretariat headed by a Secretary-General, and the UN System of Specialised Agencies, Fonds and Programmes) has fared much better. It has come a long way from limited cooperation among UN operational bodies in the 1950s to more and more implementation of their respective country operations based on integrated programmes with one budget, joint premises and led by a resident coordinator appointed by the UN Secretary-General.
  A major positive development has also been that in recent years, links have finally been established between the UN operational system and the legislative bodies of the UN involving political, security, and peacekeeping missions to facilitate holistic inter-departmental approaches.
  Furthermore, as more and more non-governmental organisations have obtained consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, the UN Executive has been able to enlarge its outreach to civil society.
  All this allows the conclusion that the UN Executive has contributed, in good measure, to promoting multilateralism in accordance with the UN Charter, despite hurdles of repeated policy interference by individual member countries and an embarrassing financial resource inadequacy.

A turnaround is possible

Let me move from the “UN as is” to a “UN that should be”, for the benefit of people wherever they live, and without distinction.
  No doubt, a tall order but a pivot, a change of direction, is possible, provided we remain engaged. By “we”, I refer to the Preamble of the UN Charter which begins with the words: “We, the Peoples of the United Nations”, not “We the Governments”.
  Let us not forget the reality of the rising outcry of the global majority of people, especially the younger generations, who are no longer willing to endure a life of poverty, disadvantage, and discrimination with little or no prospect for change.
  Facts don’t lie and ‘alternative facts’ (Trump) don’t count!
  I would argue that there simply is no reform alternative at national, international and UN levels, unless we want to ignore or belittle the precarious state of the global ecosystem and the world-wide threat of a nuclear disaster facing our existence   to-day, not tomorrow!
  The TRT has indeed chosen the right moment to reflect on what it takes to convert a collective of 193 UN member governments into a genuine community of nations which can do justice to the demands of the UN Charter.
   What is needed, to “thrive together”? and to bring about “sustainable” change to create an “effective” United Nations? What “responsibilities” are involved? and what “actions” must be taken and for what “solutions”?
  Fundamental UN reforms are, without question, pre-conditions for belatedly, and urgently preparing the organisation to become effective in the years ahead. In saying this, I would like to focus on what this implies for the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Fundamental reforms

The General Assembly has given the Security Council the “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security” (UN Charter Article 24.1). As the Council has repeatedly been unable to fulfil its mandated responsibility, it is the Security Council that needs, first and foremost, to be reconfigured in accordance with global order needs in the 21^st century.
  There must be an end to the strangling geographical imbalance of the Council’s permanent membership between western and non-western representation. As it stands, Africa and Latin America currently have no permanent seats at all; Asia with over 50 % of the global population has, with China, only one seat, while Europe and North America, with 14% of the global population, hold three of the five seats.

• The only change of membership in the Security Council occurred in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members increased from six to ten, while there has been no change since 1945 in the number of permanent seats. The enlargement of the Council and change of composition will therefore have to be an important topic of the SC reform debate.

• The misuse of the right to veto, for purely national or regional interests, has been a major cause for the failure of the Council to protect the global order and to prevent or solve conflicts.

• Difficult options for veto reform are available ranging from the abolition of the veto altogether and its replacement by majority decisions to a redefinition of the right to veto.

• The General Assembly throughout its existence has been the UN’s main forum for the debate of topics of global concern.  It has held UN Summits concerning socio-economic progress, and human rights that have led to important new international and national law, for example of the rights of women.

It must be recalled, however, that the General Assembly, has no more but the powers of an advisory body, with one exception: the Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 of 1950. This resolution gives the Assembly the authority to replace the Security Council in circumstances where the Council has failed to take measures to contain acute threats to global security. The objective of such a significant authority is to seek collective actions, including the use of armed forces, involving the entire UN membership.

• The reform challenge will be to enlarge this GA authority, beyond dealing with emergency concerns only, by broadening the canvass of issues that have a bearing on global wellbeing in areas  where the Security Council is unable to deliver.

Many of the key concerns of the GA have year after year dealt with the same issues, sometimes over a period of twenty years or more, and passing the same resolutions with identical content, adopted by large majorities. This immensely wasteful investment of time, energy, and finance has to end.

• A reformed GA must be given the authority to resolve such issues based on majority voting with consequences for dissenting states should they decide to reject the fundamental principle of adherence to democratic decision making.

Global issues must be handled globally, not be controlled by alliances or by coercion. In our diversified world of today, there must no longer be room for double standards and a choice of measuring sticks.  But there has to be room for more than one system as long as the universality of international law is respected. Whatever happens, Western geopolitical unilateralism has no future!

• The increasing participation of civil society in the global debate can no longer be ignored by governments. In a reformed UN, the General Assembly, assisted by the UN operational system of specialised agencies, funds and programmes, must therefore become the major gateway of cooperation between the United Nations and civil society.

‘A planetary summit of
human solidarity in 2024’

Over the 78 years of the UN, the list of reform requirements has become longer and longer as governments have side-lined that a General Conference “for the purpose of reviewing the UN Charter” (UN Charter Article 109) should have been held in 1955, or 58 years ago!

• The UN General Assembly should no longer default on such a conference and begin to plan as soon as possible what in fact should be a planetary summit of human solidarity in 2024 on the future of the United Nations.

The Security Council and General Assembly reform process in the areas identified will be complicated, but is doable, on condition that there is the political will to negotiate and to compromise.
  There remains one reform challenge, however, which is far more profound and overrides all others. It has to do with the mindset of the permanent members of the current, or any future, Security Council. It has to do with team-mindedness, trust, and willingness to compromise. Unless the Council as a team, especially among its permanent members, accepts these vital ingredients of multilateralism, the present stalemate will prevail, and the political UN will remain hamstrung and unable to function as an effective international organisation.
  The options are between self-serving nationalism or multilateral engagement and between impunity and accountability in the spirit of the UN Charter.
  There are respected international voices who remind us that: “Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind” and “Those who start the fire will be burnt by it”. I share these views but want to insist that everyone around the world, yes, everyone, will be affected by the ‘whirlwind’ and by the ‘fire’.
  To move from a lose-lose to a win-win United Nations will take time, much time; infinite patience; hard-nosed perseverance; and strong leadership at both government and non-government levels.
  The stakes for humanity and for a reformed United Nations are high when a culture of selfishness, of greed and corruption, competition and impunity prevail, instead of a humane and ecological sensitive realism for international relations, determined by an atmosphere of trust, empathy, convergence, compromise, and accountability.
  The choice? There is no choice!  •

* Presentation at the TRT World Forum “Thriving Together” in Istanbul on 8-9 December 2023. Hans-Christof von Sponeck, born in Bremen in 1939, studied demography and physical anthropology at the universities of Bonn, Tübingen and Washington. He received an honorary doctorate from the University of Marburg in 2010. He worked for the United Nations from 1968 to 2000. During this time, he worked in New York, Ghana, Pakistan, Botswana, India and he was Director of UNDP’s European Office in Geneva. From 1998 to 2000, he was UN Coordinator and Assistant UN Secretary-General responsible for the “Oil for Food” programme in Iraq. In February 2000, he resigned in protest against the sanctions policy against Iraq. Various awards and publications. His book on UN reform, co-authored with Richard Falk (“Liberating the United Nations. Realism with Hope”, April 2024, Stanford University Press) will be published shortly.