Expectations from the United Nations depend on one’s perception and understanding of what the organization represents and what it can accomplish. It is agreed that in an increasingly contradicting yet interconnected world with growing divisions, conflicts and the global village, the UN ought to have a crucial role to play, after all, it was fundamentally set up to help prevent future wars and to ensure peace between states. However, it is on this very point that the dilemmas begin to unfold. The ever changing nature of conflict has put the UN on a collusion course.
With most of today’s armed conflict taking place within existing state boundaries, the UN is called upon to intervene in ‘internal domestic’ confrontations for which it was not originally mandated and which it has difficulties dealing with unless given affective corporation by the state in question. This complication is compounded by increasing humanitarian crisis, human rights violations and the refugee predicament, all arising out from the present trend of intra-state conflicts, or ‘domestic issues.’ With an ambiguous practice of intervention, states have often invoked the principle of traditional sovereignty and non-interference to keep the UN or other international organizations out.
The need for redefinition of the UN is imperative and of grave urgency. The relevance of its institutional role and operating mechanisms to contribute in preventing conflict and to make possible the building and rebuilding of peaceful and just societies needs to be addressed. The underlying question necessarily lies in whether the present institutional structure and composition provides it the mandate to address the unmet needs and rights of those sections of the people which are surviving within present state systems. This question is of the essence and determines the relevance of the present UN.
In its present form, the name ‘United Nations’ is rather misleading, because based on the present criteria of membership, the UN manifest itself as a ‘Union of States’ and not as a genuine representation of a ‘Union of Nations.’ This obvious default has seriously undermined the political credibility of the UN because it has given rise to two most prominent dilemmas of our times – the question of ‘territorial integrity’ and the tendency to give paramount legitimacy to state sovereignty over people’s sovereignty. From this standpoint, the UN becomes part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
The idea behind the United Nations as a community of nations is appreciated and to truly ensure it serves the purpose of building a just and secure world, an immediate institutional transformation is required. The relevance and effectiveness of the UN lies in its structure. The direction of the new world order requires the UN to shrug-off exclusive membership to states. What it needs is an inclusive membership where peoples, nations and states are all eligible for membership, thereby addressing the contradicting nature of state territorial integrity and national security. Such a step would enable the UN to be dynamic and effective in engaging with deep-rooted issues, which are responsible for most of today’s armed conflicts.
In the final analysis, an institutional transformation of the UN is necessary to enable it to embody and pursue the collective endeavor of humanity’s search for a just and secure world for all, not just a chosen few. Failure to transform would only reinforce the present status quo in which the UN becomes an instrument only to be manipulated by narrow defined self-interests; hence negating the idea of its existence. What we need today is an approach which embraces both national security and human security as complementary principles. Can the United Nations lead the way?
