On 24 October 1945, battle-ridden Europe and the “world community” (the ones benefiting from colonial slave trades) decided that enough was enough. No more wars; diplomacy should be the first line of defence in eradicating war and destruction. Thereby, the United Nations was born out of the ashes of the once-built League of Nations.

It acted as a hope for ridding the world of any atrocity by working as an impartial mediator, managing all conflicts and bringing together all sides under one umbrella.

However, after 80 years and millions of death during this time, it is absolutely the proper moment to assess if the UN truly lived up to expectations or, as Trump put it, “utterly failed” to take the right steps when needed.

The real boss

“One of the fondest expressions around is that we (the USA) can’t be the world’s policeman. But guess who gets called when suddenly someone needs a cop,” a quote from the memoir of Colin Powell, the former US Secretary of State under President Bush.

Powell’s actions speak volumes of the UN’s failing attempt at mediation. In 2002, when he, along with the US delegation, famously presented to the UN Security Council “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, resulting in the deaths of millions, it was more obvious than ever that the UN does not call the shots, and it was crystal clear who did and continues to do so.

The 1945 UN Charter did not reflect the dominance of one empire. Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter states:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

The White House, not only in 2002 but also in previous decades, may have forgotten this paragraph, which Roosevelt himself signed. The Korean War of the 1950s, Vietnam in the 1970s, and various proxy conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East made sure that the UN Security Council, established to stop wars, was forced to justify them without say.

A tool of suppression

Various UN programmes, such as UNDP, WFP, and FAO, pioneered scientific research and development. The medications we enjoy, the vaccinations responsible for eradicating polio and measles, and curbing tuberculosis were all possible due to the collaboration of the world’s scientific communities with the UN acting as its vessel for change.

Having said that, it is also important to point out the complacencies. The UN has been the puppet that danced to the tunes of the global empire. Sometimes, it may have mistaken itself, believing itself to be an extension of the empire.

Some examples were the famous “restoring democracy” missions it quietly undertook, such as when, on 31 July 1994, the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorising a US-led multinational force to “restore democracy” in Haiti and reinstate President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, forgetting that reinstating a leader by force may seem antithetical to its mission of upholding democratic values in the first place.

In the context of the Crimea annexation (2014) and later the Ukraine-Russia conflict, as well as the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar (2017–ongoing), the UNSC has been hampered by vetoes (especially from its prominent colonial masters) and failed to take strong action.

Its judicial branch, the International Criminal Court (ICC), is often at fault, not to mention its powers are beholden to the empire as well. Standing on the bodies of over 60,000 innocent Gazans, the ICC could only convict Israel’s Prime Minister in breach of international law, therefore dubbing Netanyahu a war criminal. The situation became even more awkward when the proclaimed war criminal stood in this year’s general assembly and justified his actions during a live telecast from the UN headquarters in New York.

Some may find these types of contradiction to be proof of the UN’s failures in acting as an independent body. However, then UN still claims itself to be relevant in modern times, even though it does not have any army to establish peace, its laws are invalid since no nation is forced to follow them, and its decision-making mechanism is restricted to five permanent countries in the Security Council, comprised of nations reeking of colonial stench.

The future of an ageing institution

The famed New York-based organisation seems to be nothing but a stage to make grandiose speeches; utmost, the world leaders treat it as such. The UN, in its accomplishments, can only point towards its sub-divisions such as UNESCO, UNDP, WFP or FAO. However, if pressed for their record in stopping conflicts, its irrelevance becomes quite clear.

Trump stood on this year’s Security Council on 23 September, bashing the role of the UN left and right, saying, “Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should, too often, it is actually creating new problems for us to solve… The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders… The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them.”

Deviating an inch is not acceptable for the UN; such was the message echoed loudly and clearly. Recently the UN was forced to cancel its various peacekeeping missions around African nations in conflict.

Bangladesh, a leading provider of soldiers in those peacekeeping missions, saw a substantial number of its forces return due to budget cuts. The crisis, which UN peacekeeping chief Jean-Pierre Lacroix described as “more daunting than ever,” stems from partial non-payment of assessed contributions, the mandatory dues Member States provide to fund UN operations.

All in all, the present is a testing time, full of pressures from its Western lords and its poorer partners. The United Nations still has to endure, but not at the cost of the blind allegiance it has been showing today.

The UN we see today was doomed to fail and it may have been meant to be extremely inefficient. Its structure resembles the old world, with restricted authoritative nations deciding its every move, and the past controversies and present failures in upholding impartiality have defaced its role to the world.

One should believe that there is still hope, albeit very little, that the UN breaks out of its shackles of imperialism and takes a stand, because if the UN aims to alleviate pain, then it must restrain from causing pain and suffering in the first place.