Dr Syed Anwar Husain

The UN, as it is poised to celebrate its 80th birthday, we need to look back at its record so far as an institution. This institution was created to keep world peace. True, the world has not been devastated by such Armageddons as First and Second World War, but peace has eluded this planet earth. Right now, the Ukraine-Russia war has been devastating both the countries; but the UN efforts to stop the war have been to no avail. The Gaza War has been stopped sans the UN role.

In both the cases, the UN has been up and doing to stop the wars, but to no avail. The Gaza peace has been achieved largely through the US efforts, and the UN has been a silent onlooker. But peace has not returned to Gaza, and Israel has been the violator. The question now raised: is the UN merely a talking house? In fact, while the UN has been an abject failure in the stopping of wars, it does excel in socio-economic and humanitarian work, and the Third World does benefit out of these works. The UN, therefore, has a mixed track record,which is not to be altered in the near future.

A Survey of UN Failures
The failure of the UN in stopping wars has been galling to us. The Afghan War (2001-2021) and Iraq War (2003-2011) have been fought by the Western powers led by the United States. It is these powers who called the shot, sans the UN. The same thing happened in the case of Libya (1988-2011), where the war raged for years. In all these countries, there have been regime changes to the benefit of the United States and the Western Powers.

But in the years follows the regime changes, the people of these countries have been found to fare no better; in most cases, they have fared worse. All these happened minus any UN role. Iran and Iraq, the two neighbouring countries, fought a fratricidal war for nine years (1980-1988). This war also came to an end without the UN role. The latest in this otherwise depressing list has been the Pak-Afghan border skirmishes. These skirmishes have been brought to an end through the good offices of Egypt and Qatar, and that too without any UN role.

All these wars have been endangering the peace of the world. The UN could not do anything, but it appealed only for restraint to the warring parties. In the case of Afghanistan (Operation Afghan Freedom), Iraq (operation Iraqui Freedom) and Libya, the big powers, including the US, are involved. The same thing happens in the case of the Gaza peace. Although Egypt and Qatar are known for offering good offices, it is the US which has had the upper hand. But the Gaza peace is fragile. Thus, the big power role minus the UN has not been beneficial for the people of the concerned countries.

What is Amiss in the UN?
It is to be commended that the UN has been maintaining its Peacekeeping Forces (instituted since 1992) at 12 spots around the world. Two comments are relevant in this context. First, these are the spots with peace-endangering possibilities and where peace has been made. Second, the UN, with troops contributed by the member countries, maintains peace; it is seen that peace is not broken. This is a delicate and difficult job performed by the UN, and kudos for that.

Bangladesh excels in being one of the highest troop-contributing countries in this Peacekeeping Force. This participation of Bangladesh in the UN peacekeeping role acts as an insurance against the military takeover of civilian power. If the military of a member country does this, it forfeits its right to serve in the UN peacekeeping role. Moreover, the money earned by the Troy is the reason for addressing such a condition. Thanks, by becoming a member of the UN Peacekeeping Force, Bangladesh is spared the pitfall of a direct military rule. This goes to the benefit of the member countries.

Having said complimentary words for the UN role, especially in the context of the Third World countries, we now turn to what is amiss in the structure and organisation of the UN that prevents it from playing the wonted role in saving the world from the scourges of war.

The League of Nations, the UN’s predecessor, failed because it lacked “teeth”. It could bark a lot, but it could not bite. This lack of “teeth” arose from not having a standing army at its disposal; the same thing happens in the case of the UN. The reason why the peacekeeping operations have been relatively successful is the presence of the blue helmets. It is suggested that the UN should have a standing army, to be dispatched as and when to where it is necessary. This standing army should comprise the troops contributed by the member countries. This standing army should also be used in peacekeeping operations. In that cases the UN does not need special forces for peacekeeping operations.

The UN needs democratisation; and for this, the veto power held by the five big powers must go. The five big powers should not have the monopoly of deciding the fate of the world. The times when the UN was created are not the same now; this is 2025, very different from the circumstances in which this body had its inception.

It is one thing to harangue the world about the virtues of democracy, and, it is quite the other not to practise the same themselves. The UN, with its apex body, the Security Council, dominated as it is by the five permanent members, is an anathema to the Western values.

The distinction between the permanent and non-permanent members must go. The Security Council should comprise 15 members; all with equal status and powers. The 15 members are required to have a tenure of two years each; and, at the expiry of which the General Assembly should elect the 15 members by ballot. This is democracy, and the decision in the Security Council should be by a majority vote.

The office of the secretary general needs a revisit. As it is, he functions as a post office coordinating the affairs, and that too without any powers and responsibilities. To all intents and purposes, he is in a sinecure office, drawing a fat salary, but without any responsibility and accountability; this cannot be acceptable. We need a meaningful office justifying the salary.

We hasten to add that all these reforms are to be instituted by a committee comprising members drawn from across the world. Two conditions are necessary in this context. First, all members are required to have expertise in UN affairs. Two, the reform initiative is to be piloted by the Third World member-countries, who must act as a block. The big powers, having enjoyed entrenched interest so far are not to be trusted.

The reason why the Third World role is stressed is because of their sheer member; 77 out of the total members of 193, the percentage is 24 35. Moreover, it is the Third World countries who benefit most out of the socio-economic and humanitarian endeavours of the UN; they are the ones who also benefit from the peacekeeping operations. In a nutshell, they are mostly the beneficiaries of the UN. It would not be far-fetched to say that the UN is their stake. They see in its vibrancy an insurance of their future. The big powers can do without the UN; they have demonstrated so.

Concluding Words
The historian of the League of Nations the Italian Gaetano Salvemini, wrote of the body, “an honourable daughter of a disreputable mother…” The League of Nations died a natural death, and on the ashes of it grew up the UN. We do not want the UN to share the fate of its predecessor; we, the Third World countries, do have a stake in its continuance and vibrant existence. We do want the UN to be an honourable daughter.
_____________________________________
The writer is a Professor, Department 
of History, University of Dhaka