Relevance of the UN in 21st Century

We have reached a fork in the road and more critically, if member states won’t make a decision or prefer to keep the status quo, then history will make the decision for all of us. – Kofi Annan. The primary purpose of the establishment of the United Nations was to save the world from another catastrophic World. But the biggest question that arises now is whether it is equipped enough to meet the modern-day challenges, especially with the war within the nations. 

The UN Charter was signed in 1945 by the representatives of 50 countries and ratified by the 5 permanent members of the security council- the US, the UK, France, the Soviet Union, and the Republic of China. Its objective is to maintain peace and security and promote economic and social advancement in the world. The UN acts as a center for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals. Though the league of nations dwindled to decay during world war-II, the UN has managed to survive through many challenging crises for more than half a century.

The UN has been shaped by the world we live in. Despite its contribution in various spheres like arms management and disarmament, human rights, social and economic development, humanitarian emergencies, and for the environment it couldn’t function exactly how the drafters wanted it to be. The cold war tensions that followed the second world war had impacted the way it was formed. Its success and failure can be seen against this background.   

The 21st century is driven by technology. Revolutionary technology, new dimensions of business and commerce have created scope for various products and services that will dominate the future. We can evidently see all the countries’ funding in the research and development sector as it is the basis for dominance in this new world order.

Key issues and deliberations around the design of the UN include the distribution of power and the voting mechanism within the organization. Though it was agreed to follow the policy of one-country-one-vote the fact that the 5 permanent members have the veto power nullifies this policy as they invariably get more power than the other members. Do these 5 permanent members continue to be the highest contributors of the UN or deserve to be the permanent members. According to data from the official UN website, Japan and Germany are the 4th largest contributors to the UN budget. The technology and level of advancement in Japan are more than several other countries its contribution in the peacekeeping operations and addressing the issues related to terrorism, arms control, and nonproliferation is significant. Also, countries like India have shown vigorous participation and donation when it comes to the UN. Then why are they only considered as non-permanent members? What marks the criterion for being a permanent member? 

Apart from these other issues regarding the UN is the fact that the UN Headquarters and other important organs of the UN are in the US, due to this the US government has a significant impact on the organization. Also, most of the Presidents of the UN are generally Americans. If it is an international organization, how is it dominated only by a certain region? The US might be the hegemon, but that does not necessitate an international organization to be run by a specific region in the world. Issues like the US-led invasion in Iraq and the mass killing in Sudan make us rethink. All these issues indicate the need for significant reformation in the organization. 

The UN and its concept as a supranational body have become vague lately. When the UN failed to protect the town of Srebrenica from Bosnian Serb forces who really failed? Was it the peacekeeping forces? Or was it inefficient bureaucracy? One thing we know for sure is that very few would suggest it was the member states who failed. Now the question is even if we need an international body like the UN how do we envision it in the 21st century? Our world today is facing what we call “the new threats” such as poverty, terrorism, infectious diseases, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In order to regain the confidence of the international community, the UN must have a structural reform making it a truly transnational body. The idea of a member having a permanent seat for life should be scrapped and should change almost every 10 years. The eligibility criteria for permanent seats should be different in Global North and Global South for better representation of all the regions in the world. The use of veto should be retained in the UNSC but limited to situations like war crimes. The objective of the reforms should be to improve the UN’s ability to act both clearly and unambiguously and make it more relatable to the threats and challenges that we are facing today.