31 May 2020, NIICE Commentary 5140
Pratnashree Basu & Oishee Majumdar
Global governance has received a fair degree of momentum ever since the end of the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 which came into being to ensure the prevention of further conflicts by underscoring global cooperation and development. With time, the United Nations has grown and expanded not only in terms of member-states and personnel involved but also by incorporating more agencies under its domain to respond to diverse global issues and demands. Despite its efforts and achievements over the course of its 7-decade existence, this global institution has also attracted widespread criticism for being inefficient, unwieldy and fraught with administrative and bureaucratic corruption. The current ongoing crisis related to COVID-19 has once again led to a barrage of criticism against the UN and the manner of its functioning.
One of the major early criticisms has been about the tardiness of the institution in responding to the pandemic. The UN General Assembly was late in conducting a serious discussion and reaching a resolution. Their first resolution on this matter titled “Global Solidarity to Fight the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)” was adopted as late as 2 April 2020, by the time the virus had spread to more than 200 countries across the world and took a heavy toll on lives. The United Nations Security Council which is the most powerful organ of the UN discussed the pandemic at long during a special session which ended inconclusively due to the deep divisions over the origin and course of the pandemic between the two permanent members, the US and China.
Logic or technicalities can be a matter of interpretation and convenience where global power dynamics are concerned. Quite unsurprisingly, therefore, the Chinese Ambassador to the UN, Zhang Jun had also commented that UNSC traditionally looks into geo-political matters and thus it is not necessary to discuss COVID-19 within the UNSC. However, this can be contradicted as a global health crisis like COVID-19 has not only geo-political repercussions but is fundamental to global security and stability. For instance the fall in oil prices or the disproportionate impact stands to have a staggered impact across different countries. The impact on conflict-ridden regions is also of concern as it can have an adverse impact on their socio-political structure.
The two countries continue to remain at a stalemate primarily over differences regarding the language of drafting a resolution with China contradicting the US’s desire to completely ignore any positive reference about World Health Organisation (WHO) in the draft. The Trump administration has blamed WHO for failing to condemn China and holding it accountable for triggering a global pandemic, going to the extent of suspending funding to this UN health agency since mid-April. China on the other hand strongly supports WHO and insists that its role in calling for global action on COVID-19 be included in the resolution.
The UNSC has also not been able to reach a consensus and produce a resolution supporting a global ceasefire in the midst of this pandemic though 11 countries have informally declared ceasefire, violence and fighting continues in many conflict zones. On 12 May, Germany and Estonia submitted a draft resolution to the UNSC on ceasefire in the various conflict zones around the world during the Coronavirus pandemic. This was done to replace a draft resolution by France and Tunisia addressing similar concerns that had been blocked by the US delegates who reportedly expressed concerns that it would affect their counter-terror operations around the world.
WHO, which is the primary agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health, too has been criticised for being ineffective in handling the crisis. Taiwan had warned WHO as early as December 2019 about a new disease affecting people in China which was at that time ignored by WHO. Taiwan has one of the world’s most advanced health care systems and it has done an excellent work in containing the outbreak. The Taiwan experience in particular, teaches us that there needs to be a revision in institutions like the UN which were established in the first place as a platform for the mitigation of crises.
The biggest challenge to global institutions like the UN has been the limitations of enforceable power as a result of which they cannot effectively penalise countries violating international norms or directions given by the UN. This renders them powerless to a considerable extent particularly in the face of powerful countries like the US and China. The UN has also not been able to transform itself according to the changing global needs. The internal imbalance created by the comparatively more powerful agencies like the Security Council further affects the effectiveness of the UN. The functioning of the Security Council is complex and fraught with internal politics and allegiances of the five powers. This has been the case even in the current context, as the international community struggles to manage a global pandemic. Though the General Assembly has brought out a resolution, the world waits for the Security Council to put aside its internal differences and come to a resolution which will pave the way for a more constructive framework to deal with the situation at hand.
These characteristics of the UN have weakened the faith of many countries on this global institution and the effectiveness of global governance as a whole. Countries are depending more upon regional organizations like the EU or ASEAN, which they feel are more capable. Opinion regarding the UN is at odds within governments in several countries as well in the US for instance, with partisan divides increasing since 2013 with Republicans believing that the country should not let its interests be affected by the UN or other multilateral bodies according to a PEW survey.
China has often been critical about multilateral global institutions like the UN being dominated by western powers, primarily the US. In October 2017, during a speech at the 19th Communist Party Congress Xi Jinping declared his vision for a greater Chinese role in global institutions and making China the leader in the efforts towards reforming the global-governance system. China has on the one hand taken great care to expand its power and influence in the UN as is evident by the rise in its contributions of up to 12 percent of the UN regular budget, making it the second-largest monetary contributor to the UN and by the fact that 4 out of the 15 UN specialized agencies are headed by Chinese nationals. On the other hand, it has also challenged agencies like the WTO by establishing institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to carry out its own global economic agenda.
For years, countries like Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Australia and India have been vehemently urging for reforms in the UNSC which they feel do not reflect contemporary realities and in this sense makes the body underrepresented and obsolete. These countries along with many other developing nations have been pressing for greater transparency and inclusion in the UNSC. Considerably well represented and influential nations like the UK have other concerns about this global institution. For instance, according to a report by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, UK believes that there should be better cooperation and coordination among different departments and agencies of the UN, formulation of more effective long term policy responses to mitigate conflicts and enhancement of monitoring systems to surveil ongoing progress.
There is a need for greater transparency, control and regulation within the various agencies of the UN. Global institutions can never be truly global if they do not adequately represent and safeguard the needs and interests of the global society as a whole. While concerns and constraints related to sovereignty will prevail, they need to be objective and fair in order for the world community to trust in them. Useful checks and balances also need to be in place to curb the influence of power equations so that efforts and actions can truly be aimed at global good. Global governance will be effectual when global institutions are geared towards the global wellbeing unrestricted by politics.
