Remember the UN?

 

The Promise

 

When I was young, the UN also was young. Created over the rubble of WW II, and the sour memory of the League of Nations, the UN was intended as our best hope for a civilized future. International law and collective action would prevent the mass murder of civilians, suppress acts of aggression, mediate disputes among member states, address global economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems, and promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Inspired by the story of the UN, I made a model of the iconic UN building for an elementary school project. To me, the UN was the key to a peaceful future. It was a time of unbounded hope, after the war’s despair.

 

The Geneva Conventions, too, offered hope that civilization’s progress would prevent the atrocities of the past. They provided rules to protect civilians from mass murder or inhumane treatment. In addition, territories occupied by aggression were considered temporary: no aggressor should profit from long-term occupation. Citizens in such territories did not lose their rights.

 

Today, it is clear that the UN’s economic, social and cultural initiatives generally have been successful. It is not as clear that the UN’s peace-making initiatives, or even its role in peace-making, have been as successful. One problem is that the UN Charter recognized the sovereignty of the individual states, establishing the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs, while nodding to the possibility of intervention in extreme situations. It took until 2005 for the UN to establish the principle of “duty to protect,” the duty of a state to protect its citizens, and the possibility for UN intervention if a state failed this duty. In a way, sovereignty took precedence over collective responsibilities.

 

The Reality

 

World War II led to the condemnation of genocide, and the entire world’s commitment to “never again.” Yet, consider the Rwandan genocide, when the Hutu majority slaughtered up to a million Tutsi in just over three months. No international intervention. No accountability for the perpetrators. No international consequences.

 

Consider Myanmar and the Rohingya. The state passed a law denying the Rohingya citizenship. As we all know, the state has been killing and destroying villages, forcing perhaps millions away as refugees. Is there any clearer case for intervention based upon a state’s failure to protect? Shouldn’t the UN step in and establish a protectorate and, eventually, an independent Rohingya state? But this is not in the discussion at all.

 

Consider Iraq and the Kurds. Turkey and the Kurds. Syria and the Kurds. All three states treat them as threats. Their greatest fear is the establishment of an independent Kurdish state. Yet, isn’t their failure to protect the best argument for a UN protectorate and, eventually, an independent Kurdish state? But again, this is not in the discussion at all.

 

Consider Syria. The Assad regime has used chemical weapons internally, which the world banned after the horrors of WW I. No accountability and no consequences, primarily due to rival interventions by Russia, Iran, the U.S., and Turkey. Is this not a prime candidate for UN intervention and peace-keeping?

 

Consider Jerusalem. In 1947, the UN adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of a UN protectorate over Jerusalem, recognizing its unique role as sacred to three major religions. This protectorate was to last 10 years, establish a citizen’s legislature, and then be reviewed for extension of the UN mandate, or local self-determination.

The Arab declaration of war on Israel made this resolution moot. Neither Israel nor Jordan endorsed it, and it remains a dim memory. Yet, in the middle of a flaming Middle East, shouldn’t a UN protectorate for Jerusalem be a reasonable option?

 

There are many other examples, including Russia’s invasion of Crimea and the U.S invasion of Iraq.

 

This century may well be called the new age of tribalism. Tolerance declines and groups fight for a pure culture, denigrating or expelling the “others.” In such a time, we need a stronger UN.

 

Strengthening the UN

 

The thread linking these examples is the role of the major states, such as Russia, the U.S., and China. They each have exerted unilateral power, pursuing their perceived self-interests. They have not strengthened the UN and its humanitarian principles, but ignored or reduced the UN role to a minimum.

 

As others have noted, the march of progress is not uniform. Two steps forward and one step back. We seem to have stepped far back into the 19th century, when the great powers engaged in “The Great Game,” attempting to control the world’s affairs through their power alone.

 

So, just as the League of Nations failed to maintain international peace, the UN often has failed to live up to its principles. But why is this inevitable? Why not consider the problems with the UN’s structure and try to improve the situation?

 

Problem: the Security Council. It has 15 members, 10 serving two year terms, and 5 permanent (China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.) Action requires 9 votes, and each permanent member has a veto. Why should there be these particular permanent members? Four are principal players in defeating Germany in WW II. China is a recent superpower. Why should each have a veto over UN peace-making actions?

 

Part of the problem is the strange structure of the General Assembly: one nation, one vote. This makes each nation equal, and with so many small nations it would be relatively easy for the many small ones to outvote the large ones. Perhaps a better option would be “one person, one vote?” Perhaps there is a way for humanity as a whole to have fair representation at the UN?

 

Of course, China and India would have heavy votes under a simple population-based system. Together, they hold about 1/3 of the world’s population. Perhaps limiting population-based votes to 1/2 per person over 500,000,000 would be more “fair?” If nations were entitled to one vote per 25 million people, the attached table of rough estimates would be the result, with a total of 271 votes in the General Assembly. A super majority of 60% or 65% could be required to authorize a peace-keeping intervention. Such a voting scheme would offer many possibilities for voting blocs to form and reform.

 

Given such a representative voting scheme for the General Assembly, it should be possible to eliminate the veto in the Security Council, consider opening up membership to four year terms, and making it advisory to the General Assembly, which would choose whether to authorize interventions.

 

But there is another problem: the capacity of the UN to intervene militarily when needed. The UN needs a large standing military, with consistent leadership and troops.

 

Which takes us to one final problem: funding the UN properly. I suggest a formula using a combination of the population-weighted votes per member and GDP per member to spread the economic burden more broadly around the world. The UN needs to be less dependent upon the Great Powers, to do its job.

 

This is, of course, a discussion paper. Two steps forward are better than one step back. We need to keep the ideal of a civilized, humanitarian world in view, and work to make it more likely, and not a fading dream. We need a strong UN.

 

​

​

Table - Population-based UN votes

 

China - 38                         Argentina - 2                          Malawi - 1

India - 37                          Uganda - 2                              Mali - 1

U.S. - 13                             Ukraine - 2                              Kazakhstan - 1

Indonesia - 10                 Algeria - 2                                Syria - 1

Brazil - 8                           Sudan - 2                                  Chile - 1

Pakistan - 8                      Iraq - 2                                      Zambia - 1

Nigeria - 8                        Poland - 2                                Guatamala - 1

Bangladesh - 7                Canada - 1                               Netherlands - 1

Russia - 6                         Afghanistan - 1                       Zimbabwe - 1

Mexico - 5                        Morocco - 1                             Equador - 1

Japan - 5                          Saudi Arabia - 1                      Senegal - 1

Ethiopia - 4                      Peru - 1                                     Cambodia - 1

Philippines - 4                 Venezuela - 1                          Chad - 1

Egypt - 4                           Uzbekistan - 1                         Somalia - 1

Vietnam - 4                      Malaysia - 1                             Guinea - 1

DR Congo - 3                   Angola - 1                                South Sudan - 1

Germany - 3                    Mozambique - 1                      Rwanda - 1

Iran - 3                              Nepal - 1         

Turkey - 3                        Ghana - 1                                  All others - 19 votes

Thailand - 3                     Yemen - 1                                 combined

U.K. - 3                              Madagascar - 1

France - 3                         North Korea - 1                

Italy - 2                             Cote d’Ivoire - 1

Tanzania - 2                    Australia - 1

South Africa - 2              Cameroon - 1

Myanmar - 2                   Taiwan - 1

South Korea - 2              Niger - 1

Kenya - 2                          Sri Lanka - 1

Colombia - 2                   Burkina Faso - 1

Spain - 2                           Romania - 1

​

Sunday, February 25, 2018