Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.