The UN and the Current World Order

Postscript by Waziri Adio

Between 26th May and 4th April, the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN), Mr. Antonio Guterres, undertook a lightning trip to five countries in Eastern Europe and West Africa. He was in Russia and Ukraine for a first-hand assessment of and possible but late mediation in the war raging on Ukrainian soil for the past three months. 

Then, he crossed over to Senegal, Niger and Nigeria where he highlighted, among others, the enormous impact of the war in Europe on a region far from the battlefields and already burdened with terrorism, climate change, and other developmental challenges. 

“This war is aggravating a triple crisis: food, energy and financial, for the region and well beyond,” Guterres said in Senegal. He had earlier set up a Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy and Finance to underscore and mitigate the shocks generated by the war and its aftermath across the globe. 

In Russia, he categorically stated that the invasion was a violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and a violation of the UN Charter. And after surveying the destruction in a Kyiv neighbourhood, he added his important voice to the growing calls for investigation by the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

“The war is an absurdity of the 21st Century,” he intoned. “The war is evil.” 

He cut a different picture after meeting with displaced victims of terrorism in Nigeria’s northeast. “The people affected by terrorism I met in Borno, Nigeria want above all to go back home in safety and dignity,” he stated. “Borno is now a place of hope– showing that the way to fight terrorism effectively is to invest in livelihoods, reintegration and people’s futures.”

Guterres evoked two deeply contrasting images on this trip: helplessness and hope. In a way, that could pass as a metaphor for the duality of the important institution that he leads. And rather than see this either as an unfair criticism or as an obvious truism, he should actively work to enhance the agency of the UN, steer it away from helplessness and make it a much stronger force not just for hope but also for peace and development. 

During the trip, the UN scribe successfully put the spotlight on key issues of the moment: the devastation and absurdity of wars, the enormity of lingering existential challenges, the growing interconnectedness of the world, and the possibility of hope when the world pulls together for the vulnerable. In that sense, this is a very successful trip. 

But the most important task now is to stop the needless war in Ukraine. Without that, the devastation in Ukraine and the ripple effects, mostly on livelihoods but potentially on stability and peace, across the globe would continue and may even worsen. Beyond the appeal for ceasefire and humanitarian corridor and the bemoaning of the nastiness and senselessness of war in this age, there is no clear path for ending this needless war, even after Guterres’ shuttle diplomacy. 

In fact, the Russians didn’t even take a break from shelling Ukraine while the UN Secretary General was there. While focusing global spotlight on important issues and setting global agendas are important goals, the world expected much more of the UN as a supposed supranational authority.

The United Nations was created on 26 June 1945 mainly to promote and maintain global peace and security. Seventy-seven years after, this remains the UN’s most important mandate, engraved boldly thus in the famous preamble in the UN Charter: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind…”

To be sure, the world has been spared the sorrows of another world war and the UN has swiftly intervened to prevent many wars or provided humanitarian assistance or assembled peace-keeping forces in the aftermath of many avoidable and unavoidable wars in almost eight decades. But the sad truth is that “succeeding generations” have not been saved from the “scourge of war” when the superpowers and the allies are involved or when they fail to act on time or when they choose to un-look. 

This is the classic example of yesterday’s solution becoming today’s problem. Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States of America were given permanent seats and veto powers on the UN Security Council to guarantee world peace and promote multilateralism.  However, the veto power has not only created the absurdity of “one vote is equal to 92… or more or more” that Fela sang about in ‘Beast of No Nation,’ but has also become a key tool for unilateralism and a major impediment to world peace. 

Repeatedly, the Permanent Five have used veto to force their will on the majority, mostly without explanation and accountability, effectively neutering the UN and its close to 200 other member countries. Some of these veto holders have also repeatedly violated articles 1(1) and 2(3) and 2(4) of the UN Charter without consequences.  

It is thus a welcome development that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution on 26 April 2022 aimed at holding permanent members accountable for their use of veto. With this landmark resolution, the UNGA will meet and debate anytime a veto is used. This is a commendable first step. The veto might need to go entirely. Also, there might be need to expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council in alignment with today’s reality. Such an important body without India and with no representation from Latin America and Africa is grossly inadequate for today’s reality. 

The UN, without a doubt, is doing a lot of good work in many areas and has expanded beyond its initial mandate. The UN and its agencies have raised the profile of, mobilised resources for and implemented far-reaching interventions on economic and human development, poverty reduction, health, gender, democracy, human rights etc. Also, they have put important issues such as climate change and development goals on the global agenda. But all these great efforts can easily be undone by avoidable threats to peace and security, as the cross-border impacts of the war in Ukraine have shown. 

There have been talks of UN reforms over the years, with different meanings to different actors and constituencies. The war in Ukraine which started shortly after Guterres commenced his second term as the UN Secretary General should bring UN reform back on the agenda. 

He should see the helplessness invoked by the war as his special call to action. He should spend the remaining part of this tenure to reposition the UN to be a more effective force for global peace and security. Not just a talk-shop or a debating society. Not just a body that discovers its voice and muscle only when the ordinary members are involved but literally throws up its hands in despair when the big boys are the erring parties. 

The world needs a UN that remains an enduring force for global development, peace and security, a reformed institution fit for present and future purposes. That is the legacy Mr. Guterres should shoot and work for. 

###