17 September 2022, NIICE Commentary 8269
Arun Ayyagari

Like Heath Ledger famously states in The Dark Knight, “All it takes is a little push”, all it takes for the United Nations to stay efficaciously relevant even as the perceptional Sword of Damocles of the traditional global powers hangs over the United Nations. Experts have suggested for reform of the United Nations because the responsibilities of the UN cannot be a theoretical exercise anymore, at least not after the Ukraine crisis.

Problems in the Current UN System

The United Nations continued to serve as one voice for all the 193-member states and still strives to do so, playing its part as needed. However, as time passed, both ambitions and the nature of conflicts among member states changed drastically. These included territorial disputes, annexations, civil wars, aggressive expansionism and military coups, among others. The archaic traditional ‘1945 model’ of the United Nations rendered itself ineffective in dealing with the conflicts. With the rise of multilateralism and growing regional powers, change in its approach and methodology became much more apparent and vital.

Many scholars and think tanks continuously advocate for reform of the United Nations. This demand has been coming from all quarters, more so, from the developing nations. Developing nations and middle powers feel left out in the process, bereft of any say. The growing ambitions and rigorous nationalistic and expansionist policies witnessed in the South China Sea and along other territorial borders served as a catalyst to the already existing dissent. Although initially started off as a discomfiture, the voice quickly brewed into a demand for reform. Regional groupings and summits provided an excellent platform to register their dissatisfaction.

Possible Solution

The United Nations needs to merely ‘update’ itself, not necessarily transmogrify in the name of reforms, the benefits of which could not be discounted though. Responsibilities of the UN cannot be a theoretical exercise anymore, at least not after the continued distasteful impasse of the Ukraine crisis. Many scholars believed the United Nations, not just US and NATO, could have played a preemptive role in arresting the impending Russian aggression in Ukraine. Despite the exogenous factors (United States and NATO among others), the UN could still have intervened in a timely and effective manner. Denial in acknowledging much needed structural change (either update or reform) would not just be specious but also impractical. And the cost of inaction, or even status quo, at this stage would not only be high, but would also derail much of the good work that the United Nations has done.

Moving from status quo to major reform almost always includes unanimous approval of major participating nations which, given the machtpolitik in current geopolitical theater, would be a wild-goose chase. An updated status quo could serve as a middle ground. This would serve two purposes: one, it would serve as a healthy minimalistic middle ground, prompting for an updated infrastructure, as opposed to a complete overhaul. Two, it does not mandate a drastic change in the existing organizational infrastructure. These could be some of the possible recommendations to the United Nations.

Outreach Committee

Setting up an outreach committee could be the first step in this direction. Existing outreach includes holistic efforts, not specific to practical issues at hand. A new focused outreach committee could include ‘Conflict Studies and Resolution’ aimed at preemptively identifying conflict situations and work towards a successful conflict resolution. Including an independent dedicated team to perform a historical study of conflicts and proactively addressing issues as they rise, would not only provide a possible pathway to resolution before the conflict matures, but would also show the United Nations and its efforts in good light. Although, by charter, UNSC is tasked to determine the existence of threat to peace or act of regression, lack of an independent and committed action committee negates the purpose, especially, when the members involved in the conflict are permanent members of the Security Council. This “boots on the ground” approach would enthuse a new sense of optimism among the member states. Concomitantly, this effort would also enable a dialog (possibly a series of dialogues) among the conflict states and rest of the member states, thus infusing a sense of discipline by discouraging any potential conflicts, armed or unarmed. This group could also serve as record keeper of historical conflicts and study the timeline from beginning of conflicts to identification, action, and resolution, effectively serving as a case study for future conflicts. Possible rise of backchannel diplomacy and closed-door discussions are some of the other advantages of this group. This, coupled with Track 3 diplomacy could serve as an efficient tool in containing the conflict. As a paragon of unity and peace, the United Nations owes this to itself.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee (DEI)

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee (DEI) committees began to find increasing relevance, not just in corporate sectors, but also among public sectors. The same concept could be extended to the United Nations, except diversity here is indicative of the Human Development Index (HDI) or other UN-approved parameters. Setting up a DEI team can include developed nations, developing nations, Least Developed Countries, global powers, middle powers, regional powers, and other categories as needed. These groupings based on HDI and economy, to begin with, could be a step in the right direction. This would be a good attempt to dispel the current notion of hegemonic grip of the United Nations by selective global powers. These efforts could ultimately serve as a growing rapprochement, or even entente between the nations in conflict by mending bruised wounds and broken fences.

These initiatives could eventually be implemented across all the main bodies. These attempts alone might not completely put to rest the debate of the need of the UN and its role, but would definitely serve as a breath of fresh air and would encourage the member states by boosting their morale and maintaining institutional efficacy. It’s time for the outdated ‘1945 model’, which is not just stagnant but is diminishing in serving its purpose, to be grounded. A simple updating of its structural software would also serve as a test bed prior to attempting a revamp of the entire structure, much to the discomfort of many states, especially the global powers, who might be reluctant to let their hegemony off the hook.

Arun Ayyagari is a Fellow at the American Indo-Pacific Forum, USA.