The United States’ reprisal of its Globo-cop role in Venezuela validates, for the hundredth time, the United Nations’ irrelevance. The excruciating irony of the UN Security Council largely condemning the US
action five kilometres from the federal court where deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro was produced to face drug trafficking charges was not lost on the world. So, where does the UN go from here?
US ambassador Mike Waltz went so far as to issue a veiled threat: “If the UN in this body confers legitimacy on an illegitimate narco-terrorist and the same treatment in this charter on a democratically elected president or head of state, what kind of organisation is this?” UN Secretary General António Guterres seemed to agree with Waltz’s contention that the legitimacy of Maduro’s re-election in 2024 was doubtful and admitted that the UN had been concerned about human rights violations by the Maduro regime.
Failure to act on human rights abuses
But the question of what the UN had done to address its concerns vis-a-vis Maduro remained unasked. The eight million Venezuelans who fled the country and the families of the thousands who were illegally jailed, tortured, raped, and killed from 2014 onwards might want to know. In fact, the UN human rights agency was kicked out of Venezuela in 2024. The world looked on silently as Venezuela spiralled into chaos. Only now, when the undemocratic Maduro has been ‘Trumped’, have nations called for a restoration of democracy.
Post-Covid decline in UN influence
The manifest decline in the UN’s political clout has accelerated post-Covid. Its condemnation of Russia’s assault on Ukraine and Israel’s aggression in Gaza achieved absolutely nothing. In 2022, the EU ambassador to the UN famously declared that “the world has spoken”, and as a result, Russia stood isolated from the international community. Clearly, the world failed to get the memo, and Russia has not been ostracised. Likewise, the dozens of resolutions against Israel by various UN bodies have had as much impact as a feather duster.
A history of inaction in global conflicts
In the Sudan civil war and the Thailand–Cambodia border clashes, it has been a helpless bystander. When Pakistan threatened a nuclear attack on India, it was silent. And these are recent conflicts. From the 1950s, millions have died in the Korean and Vietnam wars, the two Gulf Wars, and the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. Perhaps the greatest testimony to the UN’s ineffectiveness was the massacre of 8,000 people in a UN-protected zone in Srebrenica.
Band-aid solutions and institutional inadequacy
UN interventions in international conflicts, climate change, pandemics, and humanitarian crises are proving to be little more than expensive band-aids. It was Guterres who admitted during the Covid-19 crisis that “the pandemic is a clear test of international cooperation—a test we have essentially failed.” Add to that the spectacular inadequacy of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in addressing the global ecological crisis or in ensuring the Global North meets its commitments under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agreement.
Selective outrage and geopolitical bias
Large countries have always privileged sovereignty over the UN Charter. A major reason is that no effective framework for addressing transnational issues, like human trafficking, narcotic smuggling, illegal migration, and cross-border terrorism, exists. What’s more, the UN has always had blind spots and expressed selective outrage over violations of human rights or international peace. It took years to respond to the egregious Uyghur concentration camps while ticking India off for refusing to accept Rohingya refugees. Given that the US is the UN’s largest funder, the laundry list of its interventions in Latin America and the Middle East has been met with little more than tut-tutting.
Erosion of international judicial authority
The roles of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have been steadily eroded. Israel dismissed the ICC decision to allow a probe into alleged excesses in Gaza as “politics in the guise of international law”. China rejected The Hague’s ruling in favour of the Philippines on the South China Sea case. Nor is India likely to accept the international tribunal’s intervention in the Indus Waters Treaty.
Scandals and accountability concerns
What’s more, the UN has had more than its fair share of scandals. Reports of sexual misconduct, including child sexual abuse, by UN forces in various parts of the world dented its reputation. Allegations of corruption, such as the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, raised questions about a lack of transparency and accountability.
Is the UN worth its cost?
Is the UN worth its 2024 budget of 66 billion dollars? Is it merely a sinecure for bureaucrats? As a 2016 research paper pointed out, taxpayers fund the UN, but “it is run by unelected, unaccountable, undisciplined, and incompetent bureaucrats.” It has been described as a mere “talking shop”, or as “toothless and clawless”. In other words, it plays a largely symbolic role as a forum for global cooperation.
Veto paralysis and UNSC reform
The UNSC suffers from what has been dubbed “veto paralysis”. The US will always back Israel, Russia will always back itself, and China will always oppose India. So, the big five—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the US—are basically immune. This renders the UNSC dysfunctional. Where is the logic in keeping the world’s fourth-largest economy and most populous country out of the UNSC? Why are Africa and Latin America unrepresented? Why is Europe over-represented?
Why the UN still matters
That said, if the UN were wound up today, a similar agency would have to be set up tomorrow, as several experts have pointed out. Certain organisations, like the WHO and the FAO, are essential. The WHO’s Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System and medical assistance to Least Developed Countries are vital for global health. Likewise, the FAO has made seminal strides in addressing global hunger, while UN aid to the forcibly displaced has saved tens of thousands of lives. Above all, the UN has “convening power”. It can bring together heads of state and offer platforms to NGOs and civil society organisations.
The case for a fundamental redesign
What’s needed is a fundamental redesign to reflect the geopolitical, economic, and social challenges of a globalised, multipolar world, with greater representation of the Global South and an end to the veto system.
Bhavdeep Kang is a senior journalist with 35 years of experience working with major newspapers and magazines. She is now an independent writer and author.
