Human welfare and the UN’s continuing relevance

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that there is a growing number of ‘UN Sceptics’ in our midst. One of the prime causes for this trend seems to be the UN’s apparent helplessness in the face of escalating bloodshed and war. In this connection today’s Gaza, Lebanon and invasion-shattered Ukraine come easily to mind. With regard to the phenomenal amount of civilian blood being spilled in these war zones in particular, the UN has been largely helpless and has proved incapable of being an effective promoter of peace and conflict resolution. The perception of the UN’s impotence should, therefore, only be expected. But such scepticism has its origins in a superficial reading of current developments in international politics. It fails to take account of all the dimensions of thinking that matter in an assessment of the UN’s apparent failings. The UN chief and his team have no choice but to act within the confines of the organizational structures they have inherited. They cannot do much to change existing mandates, rules and regulations, for example, provided the envisaged changes receive the sanction of the powers that matter in the prevailing political order. In other words, UN reform must await the consent and facilitation of the foremost powers or the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Modern world history continually demonstrates the almost impossibility of the major powers thinking and acting consensually on law and order matters of the first importance. Just two cases in point are the Gaza and Ukraine. Whereas in both these instances ending human suffering ought, under normal circumstances, be the priority of the foremost powers, they have been motivated more by Realpolitik or power politics calculations rather than by humanity. One set of ground realities that proves the above premise is the reluctance by the Trump administration to rein-in Israel completely to allow a measure of respite to be relished by the traumatized Gaza civilians who have been subjected to untold suffering over the months. The administration is also proving tolerant of the Netanyahu regime in its current no-holds-barred military onslaughts on Southern Lebanon. In the latter situation too Lebanese civilians are being subjected to hardships of a nightmarish kind. In the latter instances, the Trump administration’s need to back the Netanyahu regime steadfastly takes precedence over humanitarian considerations. That is, the US’ policy of maintaining the West Asian power balance in its favour emerges as a preeminent requirement. The latter observation raises the fundamental question of whether the ruling strata of the world’s foremost powers are heirs to civilizational values of any kind. If humanity is not an overriding consideration for these power elites, the continuous bloodletting in contemporary theatres of war should not come as a surprise. Moreover, one should not be surprised if UN reform happens to be more or less stillborn. After all, the big powers would not want a restructured UN system in which their power would be diluted or badly compromised since having a stranglehold over the present world political order is among their foremost priorities. Even in the case of the ongoing US-Iran hostilities, Realpolitik is most evident. For both sides to the conflict, it is not humanity that most counts but the consideration that the power they possess should not be compromised. Hence the on-and-off hostilities that have rendered peace negotiations most difficult to sustain. However, it would be most misleading to contend, based on the above developments, that the UN system is suffering prolonged impotence. The present suffering of Venezuela substantiates this most graphically. In the latter instance, the UN is playing an inestimably vital role in providing succour to the earthquake devastated country. In fact the UN is proving the live wire in the co-ordination of all rescue and rehabilitation efforts. Minus the guidance and encouraging assistance of the UN, Venezuela would be in far worse shape than it is in at present. Reports indicate that the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, for instance, is overseeing the operations of over 70 international urban search and rescue teams, including more than 2,300 personnel, who are working alongside the local authorities to trace and provide relief to the quake-affected. Besides, the rescuers come from multiple countries, including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, Germany, Spain, the US, France, Syria and Turkiye. The above is convincing proof of what the UN and its agencies could achieve effectively in humanitarian crises of the most devastating kind. Here is also proof of what could be achieved if the often feuding big powers of the UN Security Council think it wise to sit together in accord and consider as to how their weighty presence in the UN system could be placed at the service of humanity. The present Permanent Members of the UNSC are mainly representative of the international political and economic order which came into being in the immediate aftermath of World War Two. They by no means represent fully the contemporary world politico-economic order and, therefore, cannot be expected to work equitably towards fulfilling the legitimate needs of present day publics. Accordingly, while there is no denying that the UN system, as it stands, leaves much to be desired, the world community would do much better to address very earnestly as to how the UN could be reformed and energized to serve humanity better. It is a ‘systemic issue’ and unrelated to any personalities helming the UN at present. Democratization of the UN needs to be part of the reform process. Countries, such as, India, Indonesia and Brazil, for example, could be considered as knowing much more than the present Permanent Members of the UNSC, the ‘pulse’ of the contemporary world, particularly that of its Southern half. If these major Southern countries are inducted into the UNSC there is bound to be a more balanced representation of the world’s legitimate interests. Consequently, there could be less international friction and war. Meanwhile, the UN agencies need to be consistently strengthened and sustained to implement their humanitarian programmes without interruption. These projects are the only hope as it were of the less fortunate peoples of the world. The needs of the world’s hungry and destitute ought to be managed systematically and the UN is best at this at present but the latter is also efficient at bringing all progressive, pro-people organizations along with it in such efforts and this is being proved in Venezuela. Critics of the UN need to take notice of these exemplary collective projects.