It’s easy to be cynical about the UN. Take this statement directly from the UN:
Russia on Friday vetoed a Security Council resolution which described its attempts to unlawfully annex four regions of Ukraine earlier in the day with a formal ceremony in Moscow, as “a threat to international peace and security”, demanding that the decision be immediately and unconditionally reversed…
Due to Russia’s veto, following a new procedure adopted in the UN General Assembly in April, the Assembly must now meet automatically within ten days for the 193-member body to scrutinize and comment on the vote. Any use of the veto by any of the Council’s five permanent members triggers a meeting…
“The Charter is clear”, said the UN chief. “Any annexation of a State’s territory by another State resulting from the threat or use of force is a violation of the Principles of the UN Charter”.
UN News
The UN clearly has no ability to enforce violations of its own charter by “permanent” members of its own Security Council. It’s easy to point to violations of the charter by at least 3 of the 5 permanent members (Russia, China, and the United States) that have gone unpunished. Fixing the UN would have to start with fixing the Security Council, and that is difficult because these permanent members are not about to give up any fraction of the the power they hold over the rest of the world. So you can either argue that the Security Council is too powerful or that it is powerless. Either way, it prevents the UN from accomplishing its own mission.
One of the clearest visions for how to fix the UN was articulated by Mikhail Gorbachev (may he rest in peace) in his “Westminster College speech” in 1992. Let’s have a look at that.
No, the idea that certain states or groups of states could monopolize the international arena is no longer valid. What is emerging is a more complex global structure of international relations. An awareness of the need for some kind of global government is gaining ground, one in which all members of the world community would take part. Events should not be allowed to develop spontaneously. There must be an adequate response to global changes and challenges. If we are to eliminate force and prevent conflicts from developing into a worldwide conflagration, we must seek means of collective action by the world community…
Nuclear and chemical weapons. Rigid controls must be instituted to prevent their proliferation, including enforcement measures in cases of violation. An agreement must be concluded among all presently nuclear states on procedures for cutting back on such weapons and liquidating them. Finally a world convention prohibiting chemical weapons should be signed.
The peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The powers of the IAEA must be strengthened, and it is imperative that all countries working in this area be included in the IAEA system. The procedures of the IAEA should be tightened up and the work performed in a more open and aboveboard manner. Under United Nations auspices a powerful consortium should be created to finance the modernization or liquidation of high-risk nuclear power stations, and also to store spent fuel. A set of world standards for nuclear power plants should be established. Work on nuclear fusion must be expanded and intensified.
The export of conventional weapons. Governmental exports of such weapons should be ended by the year 2000, and, in regions of armed conflict, it should be stopped at once. The illegal trade in such arms must be equated with international terrorism and the drug trade. With respect to these questions the intelligence services of the states which are permanent members of the Security Council should be coordinated. And the Security Council itself must be expanded, which I will mention in a moment.
Regional conflicts. Considering the impartially examined experience obtained in the Middle East, in Africa, in Southeast Asia, Korea, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan, a special body should be set up under the United Nations Security Council with the right to employ political, diplomatic, economic, and military means to settle and prevent such conflicts.
Human rights. The European process has officially recognized the universality of this common human value, i.e., the acceptability of international interference wherever human rights are being violated. This task is not easy even for states which signed the Paris Charter of 1990 and even less so for all states members of the United Nations. However, I believe that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures (taking into consideration existing United Nations and regional structures) authorized to impose sanctions and to make use of other enforcement measures.
Food, population, economic assistance. It is no accident that these problems should be dealt with in this connection. Upon their solution depends the biological viability of the Earth’s population and the minimal social stability needed for a civilized existence of states and peoples. Major scientific, financial, political, and public organizations — among them, the authoritative Club of Rome — have long been occupied with these problems. However, the newly emerging type of international interaction will make possible a breakthrough in our practical approach to them. I would propose that next year a world conference be held on this subject, one similar to the forthcoming conference on the environment…
The United Nations, which emerged from the results and the lessons of the Second World War, is still marked by the period of its creation. This is true both with respect to the makeup of its subsidiary bodies and auxiliary institutions and with respect to its functioning. Nothing, for instance, other than the division into victors and vanquished, explains why such countries as Germany and Japan do not figure among the permanent members of the Security Council.
In general, I feel Article 53 on “enemy states” should be immediately deleted from the UN Charter. Also, the criterion of possession of nuclear weapons would be archaic in the new era before us. The great country of India should be represented in the Security Council. The authority and potential of the Council would also be enhanced by incorporation on a permanent basis of Italy, Indonesia, Canada, Poland, Brazil, Mexico, and Egypt, even if initially they do not possess the veto.
The Security Council will require better support, more effective and more numerous peace-keeping forces. Under certain circumstances it will be desirable to put certain national armed forces at the disposal of the Security Council, making them subordinate to the United Nations military command…
In a qualitatively new and different world situation the overwhelming majority of the United Nations will, I hope, be capable of organizing themselves and acting in concert on the principles of democracy, equality of rights, balance of interests, common sense, freedom of choice, and willingness to cooperate. Made wise by bitter experience, they will, I think, be capable of dispensing, when necessary, with egoistic considerations in order to arrive at the exalted goal which is man’s destiny on earth.
Mikhail Gorbachev, 1992
He also goes into climate change and limits to growth in this speech.
So how can we translate this vision to 2022? Well, it seems to need surprisingly little translation 30 years later. Maybe the United States could show real leadership on nuclear disarmament. Maybe the UN could offer civilian nuclear technology to any nation that agrees to permanently give up pursuit of nuclear weapons. This might require the IAEA to have an international security force with some real teeth. From there, it seems critical now to elevate biological weapons and pandemic preparedness to a similarly serious framework as nuclear weapons, since you can argue it represents an equally existential threat going forward.
The Security Council needs to expand, and the veto needs to go. This is obviously a really tough one. Or maybe each country’s veto needs to have a sunset date, and its renewal needs to be reviewed and approved by the General Assembly or a court of some sort based on the country’s record complying with the UN charter. What incentive could the current Security Council members be offered to accept this new arrangement? Hmm, this is a tough one that I will have to think more about. But one quick thought is that as the Security Council becomes increasingly ineffective and increasingly divorced from the UN’s mission, the prestige of being on it will continue to decrease. It seems like membership on the Security Council just means you are a militarily powerful bully able to get your way. And that is the exact opposite of what the UN is supposed to represent!