Five years ago, I wrote a commentary about the UN as it turned 75. The title, “The UN’s unhappy birthday,” said it all. The UN is now 80, but my critique back then remains all too valid today. Its slide into near-irrelevance continues unabated.
The annual September gathering of world leaders in New York is less important for what the UN does (which is little in the realm of preventing or ending wars) than for what it provides, namely a venue for all sorts of bilateral and multilateral meetings among the high-level visitors. Think of it as Davos for diplomats.
However, the UN itself is a victim of chronic malaise, owing above all to the resurgence of great-power rivalry. The state of international affairs today is a far cry from what it was in 1990 when the world came together through the UN in the aftermath of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.
Illustration: Mountain People
Back then, the Soviet Union and China worked with the US; today, Russia and China prevent the UN from playing a role in ending the war in Ukraine, in which Russia is the protagonist and the cause. Major divisions within the UN Security Council prevent the organization from constructively addressing most major issues, from North Korea’s expanding nuclear arsenal and Iran’s nuclear ambitions to the war in Gaza and other conflicts around the world.
The UN has failed to evolve. I doubt anyone would design the Security Council, the most important UN organ, in a way that resembles its current iteration. Yes, most would agree that China and the US should retain their veto-wielding permanent seats, but some might question why Russia, with an economy smaller than that of Brazil or Canada, and which acts in ways inconsistent with the UN charter, deserves one.
Many would also challenge the case for continuing to include the UK and France. And there would be advocates for Japan, Germany (or the EU), India and several others. All that said, any change would be opposed by at least one of the five current permanent members, which is why no meaningful change is ever likely to materialize.
Beyond the Security Council, the organization rarely does itself any favors. It puts countries that are abusers of human rights on bodies meant to protect them. It failed to stand up to Beijing when the Chinese government refused to cooperate and allow a serious investigation into the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. And the organization’s bureaucracy too often runs on the basis of a global spoils system rather than merit. Accountability is rare.
And now the US, the driving force behind the UN’s creation, its host and biggest funder throughout its existence, has distanced itself from the organization. Under US President Donald Trump, Washington no longer supports multilateral efforts to deal with issues ranging from global health and trade to climate change and human rights — and indeed questions the value of the very international order it did so much to build.
The Middle East is a special case of UN shortcomings. There is a long-term bias against Israel, one that far predates Israeli actions in Gaza and limits the UN’s ability to play a central role in efforts to resolve Middle East conflicts. Events this month did not help matters, as several states, including France, the UK, Canada and Australia, used the annual UN opening as an opportunity to recognize a Palestinian state.
Behind this move is deep and understandable frustration with what Israel is doing in Gaza and the West Bank, with their own inability to influence Israeli actions, and with what is seen as US passivity and unwillingness to rein in Israel.
Hence, the recognition of Palestine is the best (or least) these governments felt they could do.
However, understandable does not necessarily mean wise. One problem is that the decision to recognize a Palestinian state is just a rhetorical shift; it does nothing to improve the prospect of ending the war in Gaza or actually creating a viable Palestinian state.
The bigger problem, though, is that recognition risks making a bad situation worse by reinforcing the feeling among Palestinians that they do not have to earn a state through constructive actions and statements, not to mention negotiation with Israel.
Moreover, further recognition of Palestinian statehood will likely lead this Israeli government to respond in ways that will prove decidedly unhelpful to long-term peace.
Trump’s rambling address to the UN was not well received, owing to his attacks on Europe over immigration and his denial of climate change, but some of his other criticisms of the organization were well-founded.
He was not wrong when he said: “It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.”
Until the UN is prepared to do more, it will continue to be sidelined, and the gap between the world’s challenges and its capacity to meet them is likely to widen.
I concluded my commentary five years ago with: “The case for multilateralism and global governance is stronger than ever. But, for better or worse, it will have to take place largely outside the UN.”
Unfortunately, I see no reason to revise that conclusion now.
Richard Haass, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, is a senior counselor at Centerview Partners, distinguished university scholar at New York University, and the author of the weekly Substack newsletter Home & Away.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
KMT Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) recent visit to Beijing and her upcoming visit to Washington will serve as a high-level test of her diplomatic mettle. In Beijing, Cheng was received with symbolic gestures, a warm reception, and high-level access. In Washington, she will receive far less pomp and far sharper questions about the KMT’s vision for the future of Taiwan. Her challenge will be to persuade Washington that the KMT’s engagement with China can coexist with strong deterrence. Cheng’s April 7-12 visit to mainland China coincided with an intense period of conflict in Iran. Despite the strategic significance of Cheng’s trip,
The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent the vast Asian chemicals industry into a tailspin. Deprived of the likes of Qatari natural gas and Saudi Arabian oil, the region’s fertilizer and plastics plants are slowing production or even shutting down. Everywhere except China, that is. In petrochemicals, China is unique. As well as a traditional industry that uses oil and gas as feedstock, it has parallel output that relies on its abundant domestic coal. Unsurprisingly, India and other regional powers want to copy and paste the Chinese method. This would not be easy — or climate friendly. The
US President Donald Trump recently repeated his claim that “Taiwan stole America’s chip industry,” reigniting public debate on the issue. As a former Taiwanese minister of economic affairs and an entrepreneur deeply involved in semiconductor supply chain development, I feel a responsibility to clarify this misunderstanding. From the perspective of global industrial evolution and the economic principle of comparative advantage, such a statement appears overly simplistic and risks obscuring the essence of the issue. The rise of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry was not built on “replacing America,” but rather emerged as a result of countries pursuing different development paths within the
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto says he knows how to fix the problems facing Indonesia. Yet his economic mismanagement and authoritarian tendencies are steering the nation toward a familiar mix of currency instability and political chaos. The world’s fourth-most populous nation risks reversing the hard-won democratic and business reforms that came after the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997. At that time, the rupiah collapsed and the political upheaval that followed forced former president Haji Mohamed Suharto from power. Prabowo’s administration is ignoring similar warning signs. That disconnect was apparent in a national address on Wednesday, when Prabowo projected the swagger that has
RSS