Nina Ariola
Published 23 March 2023
Despite its mission to promote social, economic, and societal progress, the United Nations (UN) has garnered criticism that its efforts have not been enough to protect the peace and security of nations across the globe. Some recent examples are the political tensions in Libya, the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar, and the Yemen Civil War. Accordingly, while discussions about its relevance in today's world are increasing, it is nonetheless crucial to acknowledge that the UN provides 193 member countries with a platform to communicate and discuss their projects. Thus, the most pressing question critics should ask is not why we still have the UN but how the UN can adapt to today's rapidly evolving world. Between climate change, warring countries, and food insecurity, one efficient way the UN can address our world's most pressing issues is by drastically changing its organs, funds, programs, and specialized agencies.
There are several alarming statistics regarding climate change, including the reality that the countries with the least resources to combat the problem are the most affected. Unfortunately, Adam Day reports, "the United Nations Security Council, the only body of the UN that can adopt binding coercive measures, has so far been reluctant to tackle climate change." Considering all five permanent UN Security Council members are the largest and best-equipped countries to combat climate change, this point is deeply concerning.
It is critical for the UN to band together to take aggressive measures to fight climate change. Likewise, the organization must reorient its goals toward addressing climate change at the grassroots level to remain relevant in today's international scene; this might demand developing innovative programs for nations that cannot support themselves through the consequences of climate change.
A second global problem the UN must prioritize is mitigating conflict between countries. One of the defining characteristics of international relations is it does not operate under one authority. As a result, managing disputes and wars between nations is conditional on the UN Charter. Moreover, there is also an added factor that most UN Security Council members disagree on multiple elements of conflict prevention.
Research for the Institute for Security Studies notes, "the representativeness of the Council is sorely lacking and may sometimes privilege the interests of major geopolitical players." The report adds that "the UN system's fragmentation, and competition among its different components – even those directly involved in conflict prevention, such as the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPA) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) – tend to undermine the organization's capacity to implement prevention initiatives and promote a culture of prevention." As such, scholars encourage the UN to improve and reorganize its internal structure, especially with the involvement of the DPA and the DPKO, before tackling any global disputes, as the judgment to reject this proposition may cause more harm than good.
Continuing this idea, the UN should also consider different processes for addressing food insecurity. Other than empowering agricultural sectors in various countries, it is vital for the UN to review its own World Food Program (WFP). Just like the UN, the WFP has absolute immunity from national courts. Consequently, the WFP has garnered complaints regarding its accountability, further degrading its integrity as an institution. From employee sexual assault complaints to making some nations overly reliant on foreign aid, there is and must be extreme pressure on the UN to improve its WFP. In other words, a radical overhaul of the UN's different departments, especially the WFP, will solve the criticisms it has received over the years.
Overall, amidst the controversy over the UN's effectiveness, it is still essential to acknowledge that supporting the institution's programs is far more beneficial than undermining them. Since 1945, the UN has done a remarkable job by championing the betterment of the international community. Similarly, the organization is one of the best, if not the best, platform for international diplomacy. Dismissing the UN would be the equivalent of shunning the voices of billions across the globe. With a few changes to its systems and perpetrating multilateral action plans, the UN will acclimate to the modern world and better meet and fulfill all its responsibilities.
Comments