By: Zalmay Khalilzad
On the 70th anniversary of its founding, the United Nations remains a potentially important actor in the world. While it has accomplished much as an institution, it has serious limitations and faces significant threats to its future.
The United Nations was established to prevent interstate aggression and wars between the great powers. War has not taken place between the powers since World War II. However, in dealing with a number of security problems — including military aggression — U.S.-Soviet tensions stalemated the institution throughout the Cold War. Nonetheless, during this period the United Nations still managed to improve its capabilities in areas such as peacekeeping, economic development and international mediation.
The Soviet collapse raised the hopes for an era of great power cooperation through the U.N. to address a broad range of security issues. While there was some improvement in the U.N.’s ability to deal with conflicts, overall, the U.N.’s record over the past quarter century has been decidedly mixed.
The institution has played a positive role when the great powers have been unified. The Security Council authorized a large coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait and then used its sanctions and disarmament capabilities to help contain Saddam Hussein. The United Nations’ convening powers, credibility and field experience were critical in facilitating the post-Taliban transition in Afghanistan after 9/11.
Where the great powers have been divided or lacked the will to intervene, however, the United Nations has disappointed. Genocide and mass slaughter went unanswered in Bosnia and Rwanda. And the U.N.’s endorsement of the “responsibility to protect” has mattered little as the death count grows in Syria.
Adapting the U.N. to deal with future threats poses formidable challenges. Different countries and voting blocs have different priorities. The United States and its allies want the United Nations to take greater initiative in advancing security and human rights, but are reluctant to increase their contributions to the organization. Rising powers are eager to join the Security Council, but are unwilling to embrace the larger reforms necessary to reduce waste across the U.N. system.
Even if the United States continues to favor adding Japan and perhaps other states to the Security Council in exchange for broader organizational reforms, the other four permanent members have little incentive to do so. China worries about the prospect of historic regional rivals, namely Japan and India, becoming permanent members. Russia is firmly against diluting its role in an enlarged Security Council or yielding its current veto authority, which would challenge its special position in the United Nations. And the United Kingdom and France have every reason to resist reform at a time when Germany and other members of the European Union argue that the Security Council’s membership structure is an anachronism.
Then there is the challenge of resources. Those with the highest financial stake in sound management and operational efficiency have limited leverage to direct U.N. funding. In 2013, seventeen countries (representing less than 9 percent of the total membership) paid over 80 percent of the U.N. budget. The remaining 176 contributed about 18 percent of the budget, yet could easily decide how and on what initiatives to spend those funds. Efforts to unify the world’s democracies through such initiatives as the U.N. democracy caucus have not disrupted Cold War-era voting blocs that seek, above all, to redistribute resources to the developing world and press one-sided resolutions against the United States and its closest friends and allies.
When the U.N. is gridlocked on security issues, there are regional organizations with improving capabilities increasingly able to address problems. NATO has defied expectations that the alliance would wither after the Cold War; it has expanded incrementally and assumed out-of-theater operations with much success. The African Union is making strides as a peacekeeping and mediating force. And the United States retains the unique ability to unilaterally galvanize coalitions of the willing.
Credible alternatives to the U.N. create incentives for states to treat the U.N. in a more transactional manner. Rather than investing in the hard work of reforming the U.N., principal donors are making voluntary contributions to the U.N. programs that serve their interest while ignoring the institution’s deeper sources of mismanagement and ineffectiveness. This trend, in the long-term, poses an existential threat to the U.N.
The U.N. remains relevant by meeting the most pressing demands for collective action when the permanent members are in agreement. In this sense, the burden is primarily on the permanent members of the Security Council. But division among major powers continues to prevent effective action by the U.N., which in turn undermines the U.N. in eyes of affected counties.
And, the inability of the U.N. to reform itself in a manner that would make it more effective and credible presents a serious threat to the future viability of the organization. It is, therefore, essential to refocus the efforts of all U.N. member states on the need to reform an institution that has demonstrated its value and could play an even more constructive role in the world. Otherwise, the lofty enterprise that was created 70 years ago risks becoming irrelevant. It is in the world’s collective interest that this does not happen.
Source: The Washington Examiner