United Nations: A Puppet of The Big Five
Written on September 12th, 2022 by {"login"=>"jcbphc21", "email"=>"f20181005@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"Journal Club", "last_name"=>"BPHC"}Conflicts in humanity have dated back centuries. Be it the remains of arrow-stricken human bodies uncovered by archaeologists in Sudan that date back to the Mesolithic era over 13,000 years ago, or the first eye-witnessed war, the battle of Megiddo in 1479 BCE, or the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, we haven’t had a period in the past 300 years without any known war.
World War 1 recorded the highest number of deaths to the then date, eradicating 1.27% of the world’s then-human population. There was disharmony, crippling world hunger, and a rampant spread of famines and pandemics, new world weapons much more potent than grenades, artillery, or gas attacks. And hence established, the League of Nations- an international organization bringing together 30 different countries of the world to promote world peace and harmony so that an event so catastrophic never reoccurs. While the League was built on the firm grounds of the Treaty of Versailles, the most crucial peace treaty which formally ended the war, the countries were mutually responsible for “independence and territorial integrity,” it was more of a moral agreement and not a legally bound rule every participating country agreed upon. The world war had hit nations, especially Britain and France, hard, and they could not afford to fund the League and provide for a military that would be used to place physical sanctions on rule-breaking countries. Russia, which a communist government ruled, Japan, which took to breaking peace pacts and attacking Manchuria, and Germany, the primary aggressor in World War 1 according to the treaty of Versailles, were forbidden from joining or continuing the League. Therefore, they could not offer any of their resources for its sustenance. Finally, the U.S., which had initiated the creation of the League, refused to join as it would have to be the soul cornerstone. The failures lined up right from its inception in 1919, and the League reached its culmination with the outbreak of World War 2. It failed its purpose in stopping this cataclysmic war that led to over 75 million deaths, amounting to around 3% of the then world’s population, and was formally dissolved in 1946.
And thus, was created the United Nations Organization, with more member countries, more funds, wings to care for world health and hunger, a world bank, and a peacekeeping force to impose military sanctions. The embarkment of this organization in fulfilling its promises and catering to the modern-day needs of the world has been quite interesting. Sparks flared, and questions were raised when it failed to stop the recent aggression of Russia on Ukraine and the passive stance on the COVID-19 pandemic. So is the UNO treading on a different path of incompetence yet leading to the same fate as the League? Let’s read on.
Arguably the most important wing of the United Nations is the Security Council. As it stands, the “United” Nations and its Security Council have five permanent members- the US, France, Britain, China, and Russia. Given the power of “Veto,” the big-five nuclear powers have near unchecked power and can make or break any world decisions as per their political, economic, and military benefits. There have been severe criticisms about how the permanent-members structure should be discontinued when all five are nuclear world giants, with no country representing the other part of the socio-military world. As per 2019 records, USSR and Russia vetoed 141 times, the United States 83 times, UK 32 times, France 18 times, and China 14 times.
Similar to the League, the UN general assembly resolutions are not legally binding on the participating nations. The world witnessed the abhorred violation of civil rights of citizens of Ukraine, women and children alike, as Russia vetoed the legally binding UNSC resolution to retreat the Moscow troops engaged in the Ukrainian aggression. The General assembly, like the representative democratic political body, condemned the action but could not do anything to change what the UN veto system had brought about. And this is not even the first time Russia executed this. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was of similar nature, with Russia using its unbound powers as a permanent nation to bring about a military attack and breach the very ideals the UN was built to protect. Ever since 1991, when Georgia declared its independence from the USSR, there have been conflicts between the Georgian state and the separatist region of South Ossetia. The UN did try to intervene and stop the violation of the ceasefire. Still, the UNSC denied the Russian-backed Ossetian draft that demanded surrendering all arms by the US and Europe-backed Georgia. Russia vetoed against UNs forces intervening to stop the aggression and attacked Georgia after falsely accusing it of genocide.
The battle over the “holy land” between Palestine and Israel has been in the UNSC discussions over 30 times, with each time, the US veto-ing against international actions on Israel due to their pacts of friendship, while Palestine has no such say in the UNSC. The US has also been involved in a long-standing conflict with Iran. In its quest for control over Iranian oil fields, and Iran’s aspirations of becoming a nuclear power, military, and innocent civilian lives have been put to death for over 80 years now. In a recent turn of semi-peaceful state, after the Trump government had strictly banned nationals from seven Muslim-majority nations, including Iran, from entering the US for 90 days, and called off the Iran nuclear deal, tensions plummeted.
The UN has in it the powers to cease a state of war even before it germinates but is bound by diplomatic relations of countries and its other immoral reservations it has never admitted to. A prime example all would relate to would be the Bangladesh Liberation War, or as we know, the Indo-Pak war of 1971, seeded by the Bangladesh Genocide by the Pakistani Army. The UNSC could have stopped the war, but due to its ineffectiveness, India had to resort to a full-blown military intervention to stop the genocide. Attempts were made by the US to stop the war, but similar to the other unethically high times, Russia vetoed. Several other mass massacres, genocides, and wars have taken place under the UN- the Bosnian Muslim genocide by Serbia, which counted over 100,000 deaths in the name of ethnic cleansing; and the unresolved Syrian civil war, which has been raging for over 11 years now, and has caused nearly 500,000 casualties (as per UN reports).
US troops invaded Afghanistan to protect it from the Taliban attacks and dictatorship in 2001. There has been constant retaliation from the Taliban to take back their reign. In 2018, the US and Taliban signed a peace pact by which the US will slowly reduce the number of army troops in Afghan, as the Taliban promises to prevent the territory under its control from being used by terrorist groups and enter into negotiations with the Afghan government. However, there was not much of an impact, and the Taliban continued on its own terms. Changes hit, and tragedy struck when the Biden government decided a complete withdrawal of troops by September 2021, and the rampant takeover by the Taliban began. The world watched in utter horror as the Afghans were helplessly deprived of their land and rights, only to plead to the US and the UN for help. The UN’s dependency on the US was brought to light as the situation worsened.
The world beyond the big five does not get much of a say in the decision-making and functioning of the wings of the UN. As the world sided with the US in criticizing China for the COVID-19 pandemic, and WHO chiefs for staying amicable toward China, the UN failed to deliver information transparently and retained its diplomatic approach. The US put a halt to its WHO funding. Critics suggest that the WHO, like the UNSC, is now politicized and intensely bureaucratic. World leaders refuted associating with the WHO due to their poor handling of the pandemic, constantly defending China, as mistrust flared. Not just this, the WHO and UN have been criticized for ignoring the experts on climate change warnings. World hunger numbers shot up to 828 million in 2021, a rise of over 150 million from 2019. Reports suggest that even by 2030, 8% of the world’s population will still be in the clutches of hunger, making the goals of getting rid of world hunger by 2030 seem shaky.
“70 years and half a trillion dollars later, the United Nations may have been hailed as the great hope for the future of mankind – but it has also been dismissed as a shameful den of dictatorships. It has infuriated with its numbing bureaucracy, its institutional cover-ups of corruption, and the undemocratic politics of its security council. It goes to war in the name of peace but has been a bystander through genocide.” –The Guardian.
So here we stand- the organization depending largely on the US, the General Assembly only a moral and not a legal decision maker, the Security Council brimming with bias and corruption, the world still in hunger, flaws in handling the pandemic still not accepted, wars still raging, billions still spent on peacekeeping, communal violence, and riots speeding up more than ever, and fear of breaking down just like the League of Nations did. When we speak of the UN, we do not get the idea of an authoritative body all countries abide by. It is now reduced to a mere set of rules that are extremely easy to break. Britain, France, and the US work together as fait accompli, while Russia and China form the non-US-supportive side of the world. Russia and China continue as expansionists, with Russia catapulting from autocracy to dictatorship, and China disguises itself as a democratic dictatorship. There are now only 75 out of the 184 members which are true democracies, as globalism continues to threaten the ideas of national sovereignty.
One side of the world tries to increase its dominion, while the other strives to save its freedom. And it is not as easy to understand how to make things right. The article tries to discuss the crevices in the ideals, only hoping that they are not deep enough to shake the peace and survival of the average reader.