Kalyani Shankar
Overall the UN is a mixed bag and it is for the members to make it effective. At this juncture, it is crucial to improve the UN rather than destroy it
The United Nations (UN) will be 75 next month. It is a relatively young organisation but a significant birthday like this one means it is time for stock-taking. It came into being after its structure was finalised at an international conference in San Francisco in October 1945, in which 50 countries, including India participated. Since then it has grown and today the UN has 193 members. Moreover, the UN of today is hugely different from the UN of 75 years ago. The big question is whether the world body has played its role properly or has it become irrelevant? It was the late UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld who said famously that the UN was created “not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell.”
Interestingly, those who support the UN believe that the world body has served its purpose by and large. The very fact that it has survived, despite the ups and downs, shows success. They point out that most of all, there has been no nuclear war in the last 75 years. Others praise the peace-keeping missions of the UN. They also praise its sustainable development programmes. But the UN is also criticised for not being effective for various reasons. On the UN's watch, several authoritarian rulers have used conventional weapons against innocent citizens. The UN resolutions are non-binding. The world body was supposed to prevent conflicts and war and yet over 80 conflicts took place since its inception. In the last three decades, US Presidents, right from Bush to Trump, have all criticised the UN for its functioning. The UN is also facing a resource crunch because members, including the US, do not pay their contribution in time.
India's involvement with the UN is remarkable. As a founding member, New Delhi's contribution in implementing the goals of the UN Charter and programmes has been substantial. It has been involved in many UN bodies and India is the current chair of the World Health Organisation's (WHO) executive committee. India is right now a member of the UN's Commission on Status of Women (UNCSW), for four years (from 2021 to 2025). India was elected as a non-permanent member of the powerful UN Security Council (UNSC) for two years in June and the country served eight two-year terms earlier. New Delhi has been lobbying for the expansion of the UNSC and also staked a claim for a place in it. For some years now, whenever any of our Prime Ministers went abroad or any heads of State visited India, one issue that was always raised was getting support for India's candidature to the expanded UNSC. However, the reforms are not taking off for various reasons. For instance, the five permanent members are not keen on losing their veto powers. The UN chief has praised India's contribution to the peace-keeping forces as it has been the driving force behind many issues like the end of colonialism and apartheid and of global disarmament and terrorism. India is an ardent advocate of UN reforms. New Delhi initially had no ambition of becoming a permanent member of the Council. However, when the General Assembly took up the UN reforms in 1992, Japan, Germany and Brazil sought membership in an expanded Security Council. India too joined them in the chorus. However, many European countries object to Germany's claim, Argentina opposes Brazil and Pakistan opposes India, and so on. Thereafter, the four countries formed the BRICS group to work together.
The one question that is being repeatedly asked in today's circumstances is what is the future of the UN? Some want the UN to play a greater role in world affairs, while others want its role to specifically focus on humanitarian work. Reforming the system and getting wide international support and funds are the most important things needed for the UN. Almost from the early nineties, the reforms are being talked about but there is no progress in this regard, which is indeed unfortunate. Second, the UN needs to be modernised. Many feel that the present structure is flawed and many programmes are often duplicated. Third, there is an increasing feeling that the UN should be strengthened. The world body should be vested with more powers to deal with errant members.
Fourth, UN funding should not be stopped for any reason as the world body must remain independent. The UN is dependent on the contribution of cash, goods and services from its member states to finance and help its activities. Fifth, there is a need to cut down the strength of the staff. As The Guardian newspaper pointed out some time ago, “85,000 bureaucrats, an annual spend of about $40 billion (£26 billion) — 2,000 times that of the organisation's budget during its first year in 1946. Spending has quadrupled in the past 20 years — and still, several agencies struggle to balance their books.”
However, despite all complaints and criticism, the UN is currently the only international body where heads of states can gather to discuss important issues and countries come together to try to work out some of the world's problems. Overall the UN is a mixed bag and it is for the members to make it effective. At this juncture it is crucial to improve the UN rather than destroy it.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
