Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

United Nations, failure of the
Section C. International relations

The UN has certainly not been an unqualified success, but it has hardly been an unmitigated disaster either. The central point in this debate is to identify some theoretical framework or set of criteria in which to fit the numerous examples on both sides. For instance, the UN might be compared to its initial aims, or it might be said that those have evolved over time, or that the original charter is an overly demanding metric to use. As this debate is so fact-heavy, it is particularly important to be up to date on the UN’s work. There is also some confusion about exactly what counts as ’the UN’, because organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are notionally connected to it, but financially and operationally separate; generally, these can be excluded as there is plenty of material without them.

Pros

[1] The United Nations was founded in the aftermath of the Second World War, in an attempt to preserve peace and to build a better world founded upon respect for human rights. There have been so many conflicts, with so much loss of life, in the past 50 years that it is clear that the UN has not satisfied the hopes of its founders. Not only do many regimes still abuse basic human rights, but the UN has been powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing and genocide in Central Africa and the Balkans.

[2] While there has not been a Third World War, this is nothing to do with the UN: rather, for 45 years, it was prevented by Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) between the Cold War powers, which has now given way to economic common sense; war is simply too expensive for interconnected and globalised economies to engage in it.

[3] Many of the UN’s failures stem from its intrinsic bureaucratic shortcomings, such as the ability of any permanent member of the Security Council (UNSC) to veto decisions. The selection of these members is looking increasingly arbitrary and is not dependent on commitment to the UN ideals (China, for example, sells arms and nuclear technology to dangerous regimes, while the USA refuses to pay its contributions to the UN). Some resolutions passed by large majorities in the General Assembly (e.g. against Israel) have not been implemented, in large part due to obstruction by the USA and other Security Council members.

[4] Perhaps the UN’s most serious failing is that it has not prevented genocide in numerous instances; its inaction in Rwanda (1994), and then at Srebrenica (1995), points to a deep and systematic inability to tackle the most heinous crimes on earth. Moreover, the UN record has not improved; massacres in Syria by Bashar al-Assad and in the Ivory Coast by Laurent Gbagbo show that the UN remains largely powerless to protect the world’s most vulnerable people.

Cons

[1] To a large extent the UN has fulfilled its remit, helping to prevent a global war, standing up to aggression (especially in North Korea and Kuwait) and making human rights a powerful worldwide concept which states can flout but not ignore — or else why would China have tried to justify its record as better than that of the USA? Some UN failures are tragic, but it cannot be expected to succeed in every case; it should be judged against the outcome were it never to have existed.

[2] Mutual Assured Destruction may have prevented nuclear warfare, but the UN has been the global focus for negotiation and co-operation in the way its predecessor, the League of Nations, never was. Both formal and informal compromises can be reached in tense situations. The end of the Cold War made co-operation via the UN even easier, and it was later a focal point for Western intervention in the Ivory Coast, Libya and Mali.

[3] There are plans to make the UNSC more representative, such as by expanding the number of permanent members, and including a more diverse set of countries on it; suggestions include Japan, India, Brazil and South Africa. In addition, the veto power could be revoked or reformed such that, for instance, two permanent members had to wield it to have effect.

[4] An organisation cannot simply be blamed for the fact that terrible atrocities happen in the world; genocide is horrendous, but it is a fact of the modern world, and when armies are amassing in such numbers to commit genocide, the UN could hardly step in easily to stop them.

Possible motions

This House would abolish the UN.

This House believes that the UN has failed.

Related topics

Democracy, imposition of

Sanctions, use of

Non-UN-sanctioned military intervention

United Nations standing army