Is the United Nations Fixable?

The award for comedy writing this morning goes to neo-Ottoman Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his offering at Foreign Policy. One might think that a piece titled “How to Fix the U.N.—and Why We Should” might contain some ideas on how to fix the U. N. and why it should be fixed but, alas, it does not. His complaints about the United Nations are that a) it hasn’t completely stamped out “atrocities” or ended world hunger and poverty:

The main reason for the U.N.’s current troubles is the Security Council’s failure to keep its promise of promoting peace and security around the world. From Bosnia and Rwanda to Syria, Yemen, and Palestine, the U.N.’s top decision-making body has neither prevented atrocities nor brought to justice those responsible for heinous crimes. On the U.N.’s watch, authoritarian regimes around the world have used conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction against innocent civilians. Some regimes have even carried out genocide without facing consequences. The U.N. has also failed the millions of children who suffer from extreme poverty and malnutrition and, as Turkey knows all too well, has been unable to take necessary steps to ease the suffering of refugees.

and b) the U. S. is just too influential, darn it:

At a time when global leadership is desperately needed, it is crucial to improve the United Nations rather than destroy it. If the great powers are unwilling to assume responsibility; if a handful of countries that reap the benefits of the existing international system do not want to commit to reform; and if some of the U.N.’s architects, including the United States, continue to damage multilateralism by taking increasingly unilateralist steps, it will be time to redefine global leadership. We must end the monopoly of a small number of nations and promote the collective leadership of countries that aim to resolve key global challenges. If the great powers prove unwilling or unable to act, the community of nations—under the umbrella of the United Nations or other organizations—must do what is necessary.

My inference is that he is angling for a seat as a permanent veto-wielding member of the Security Council for Turkey.

Most of the “atrocities” to which he points are being perpetrated by United Nations member states against their own people. Evil as that is, the purpose of the U. N. is not to act as a global policeman, punishing infractor states. It is to prevent war between states.

He neglects to mention that in some cases (Rwanda) U. N. “peacekeeper” forces stood idly by while genocide took place. In other cases “peacekeeper” forces actually perpetrated atrocities—the perpetration of child sexual abuse by “peacekeeper” forces and U. N. officials is appallingly high. In Haiti cholera, previously unknown on the island, was apparently inflicted on it by U. N. forces from South Asia. At least that’s what the genetic analysis of the cholera in the subsequent outbreak that killed thousands suggested.

I’ve made a number of suggestions for reforming the U. N. over the years. For example, I think that there should only be one permanent seat on the Security Council for European countries (a critique blunted somewhat by Brexit). I also think that the number of permanent seats on the Security Council should be expanded to include a South American and an African country. I would suggest Brazil and Nigeria as the obvious candidates. That wouldn’t do much to remedy the U. N.’s impotence but it might gain it increased legitimacy.

Another modest proposal of mine is to limit membership in the U. N. to countries that subscribe to the U. N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That would prevent such travesties as the membership on the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights of notorious human rights abusers.

In the end I think that the universality of the U. N. is in conflict with its ability to perform its missions adequately. World government requires more consensus than we have at present.