Recent Radio Talk on UN Day

Celebration of United Nations Day this year has tremendous significance in the context of Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday being celebrated as International Non-Violence day on the initiative of the UN itself. Has the UN accomplished its historical objective of averting war and establishing peace among the Nations? The track record of UN in this regard is not that pleasant to look at because it is not UN which has called the shots but only the superpower US which has been shaping the political and economic destiny of the world economy by sheer military might and hegemonial power associated with it, in spite of the fact that it is a shrinking economic power. Furthermore, if at all there is any failure on the part of UN it can be simply attributed to the collective failure of many Nation- States which embody United Nation.

Let me begin my talk with a simple but lengthy sentence I remembered to have heard from a radio talk delivered by one of the greatest statesmen of the country Dr. C. N. Annadurai way back in the late sixties.

“There stands a massive building where flags of more than hundred nations fly side by side with equal honour proclaiming to the world that they belong to different countries but belong to one world. They have a separate existence but for a common objective, they have riches and strengths of various dimensions to be pooled together for the common task of freeing mankind, from fear and famine, pestilence and ignorance, violence and vandalism, and above all to give man his due, the dignity of labour.”

It would not be an exaggeration to say that this simple quote captures the essence of the initial euphoria with which the UN was established in 1945. Its stated objectives were to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation for engineering collective security, promote and encourage respect for human rights and ensure freedom for all. Thus, the visionary ambition of UN was to prevent powerful States invading and occupying weaker ones and more important to prevent the eruption of another war. Except for a few occasions when UN was successful in mitigating the dangers of power politics especially during the Cold War, UN became defunct because of extreme bipolarity of international politics prevailing then. During this Cold War era, US found itself in an advantageous position to play the role of a world banker, supplier of world money and also an arbiter, at least in theory, in promoting democracy and human rights through UN. With 40 percent of UN funding contributed by American tax payers, US hoped that its veto power in UN Security Council would help protect America’s national interest. But at no time US was keen to make any multilateral framework to succeed; be it political or economic field. This was the reason the UN could not evolve closer to at least a semblance of world government.

The UN is just 60 plus. It has emerged as a symbol of global identity. It is essentially a platform where Nation-States can listen to one another and settle disputes if any with less reliance on force. It is a mechanism for conflict resolution in international security affaires. Theoretically at least, along with international institutions like IMF, IBRD and more recently established WTO, the UN is a closest thing to world government but in essence it is not. Since sovereign nations are unwilling to surrender their political sovereignty UN has not become an all powerful governing body. It exists because others want it. Many nation states have created and lived with it to serve their own national interest.

UN’s structure is built around General Assembly where each nation-state has one member one vote principle. General Assembly largely works through recommendations and advice to member states and to Security Council but they are not binding on any one of them. General Assembly also coordinates a variety of Third World activities through one of its principle body of Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It is this Council which coordinates the work of various UN specialized agencies like UNDP, UNCTAD, FAO and so on. Parallel to General Assembly is UN’s Security Council which consists of five permanent members and other 10 non-permanent members. This is the primary action agency of UN and vested with primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. Administration takes place via UN Secretariat and International Court of Justice also known as world court is the judicial arm of UN. As of now, there are more than 190 members of the UN. The major strength is universality of membership, but democratization of UN is constrained by big five in Security Council and their veto power.

The major constraint impinging on UN is resource crunch. Despite many nations joining UN, it appears very small and fragile institution, lacking funding facility. Especially the US has played truant and for many years it did not pay dues. Indeed, US is largest defaulter in paying its dues and contributions to the UN. There can be two reasons cited for such US sleight: first, is the US inherent dislike of multilaralism for it curtails its maneuverability in international politics and it is in this context that UN is treated as an institution which will obstruct maximization of its national interest via unilateralism. Second, shrinking economic strength does not provide necessary financial wherewithal for taking care of UN. While world spends $800 billion on military, a mere $2 billion are spent on UN budget.

During Cold War era, in the face of perennial US-Soviet conflict, UN had only a limited role to play. It did not play any central role in resolving conflicts. Although the American unilateralism did not have any high cost, the relative roles of US and UN have been always a certain source of tension. The end of Cold War coincided with disintegration of Soviet Union and demise of communism. It was during this period that Iraq under Saddam occupied Kuwait fully convinced that it would go scot-free but the US through a formidable alliance within the UN framework and effectively dismantled the Iraqi occupation. This US effort gave a ray of hope that at long last nation-states especially those who are in key position were ready to give UN a chance to play the role intended for it. But alas it was not destined to be.

September 11, 2001 attack on US twin towers gave a fresh lease of life to US to declare war on terrorism as the central objective of foreign policy and in close collusion with Britain it invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussien ruthlessly citing the reason which has now become fully discredited exposing fully the shallowness and crookedness of these superpowers. UN was completely sidelined and marginalized in this entire military exercise.

Under the circumstances, UN is neither able to manage the world problems nor restrain the US which continue indulge in rampant unilateralism in its foreign policy under the guise of facilitating effective promotion of democracy, human rights and counter terrorism and so on. The UN has become a passive spectator and sitting on the sidelines virtually helpless.

Writing in New York Times January 12 2002, “On what is Americas place in the world now”, Alexander Stille says,

‘Clearly the world has changed. Developments in technology have given small group of people the kind of destructive power once available to national governments. The principal mechanism the world has devised – foreign aid , non governmental institutions, the world bank , the United Nations – have not succeeded in dealing with the most troublesome and difficult cases’.


In a world which has become flat – meaning globalization has ensured a level playing field, there are still a number of political and economic zones which are simply far away from the so called level playing field. Therefore, there is an imperative on the part of international institutions and organizations including the UN to play really a substantiative role in attacking all social, economic and political problems plaguing the globe. But unfortunately they are only making a notional contribution and UN is no exception. The time has come for all the stakeholders to change for the better. The US must realize that it does not own the world but shares it with others as it was aptly observed by Prof. Naom Chomsky. Therefore it can not claim a special and differential status.

For the UN to play a central role, radical changes are needed in the institutional structure in the pattern of administration of the UN to represent the changing times.