As the world stands by and coolly observes yet another humanitarian crisis, this time in Syria, it is relevant (and, in my opinion, even necessary) to return to the subject of the efficacy of the United Nations.
I believe the U.N. has failed in its most crucial mission: that of protecting the human rights of global citizens. The Syrian civil war provides a good vehicle for this discussion, although this crisis is by no means the first example of U.N. failure.
The Syrian conflict has been in the works since spring of 2011, and since then it has escalated into a bloody civil war with a particularly bad record for civilian casualties.
On top of this, it is estimated that more than a million people have been internally displaced by the conflict.
Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council has been unable to make any move toward intervention thanks to vetoes by China and Russia against proposed military sanctions.
This inability to act contributed to the resignation of Kofi Annan, then-U.N. peace envoy to Syria, on Aug. 2, as well as to the termination of Syrian occupancy by U.N. observers and truce monitors on Aug. 19.
Meanwhile, on Aug. 3, the U.N. General Assembly voted to pass a resolution condemning the Syrian government for its violence against civilians. Keep in mind that a resolution passed by the General Assembly is merely a statement of the overall opinion of the General Assembly and does not have the power to command any military action or intervention.
What can we blame for these failures?
Is it the General Assembly's inability to command any real action? Is it the member countries' tendency to spend meetings locked in debate rather than making decisions? Perhaps both.
In my opinion, the U.N.'s inefficacy lies most of all in the Security Council's ineptitude and outdated method of decision-making.
The Security Council is comprised of 15 members, 10 of which are not permanent and rotate in and out by serving temporary two-year terms.
The other five have permanent member status and are also the only five nations with the power to veto resolutions. These five are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China and Russia. It is easy to imagine that their political motives and agendas are often at odds with one another, making the veto a formidable force.
In my opinion, the veto system places an unfair emphasis on the opinions and political goals of the five permanent member countries, while the rotating member system denies equal representation to other countries who are otherwise permanent members of the U.N.
Most of all, the system gives the Security Council the power to waffle around, veto resolutions left and right and generally never get anything productive done. In the meantime, citizens of countries like Syria continue to go unaided.
So how could we amend the system?
Perhaps by giving all U.N. countries fair representation in the Security Council as well.
Perhaps by abolishing the veto system and making decisions via a typical democratic voting process, thereby preventing countries from impeding justice to further their own political motives.
A radical solution? Maybe so.
However, I believe it takes radical thinking to solve extreme problems, and it is also my belief that the U.N. presents an extreme problem at the moment.
In a world that is faced every day with increasing international tension, violence, oppression and human rights violations, we are desperately in need of an entity that will stand up for peace, justice, equality and the well-being of all people across the globe.
This did not occur in Rwanda in 1994.
This did not occur in Darfur at any time between 2003 and the present.
This is not occurring in Syria now, and if the state of things remains the same, it will not occur anywhere any time in the future.
This is a call to the United Nations and to the international community as a whole to reconsider their policies, to reorganize their priorities, and to stop abandoning suffering people around the world. Our concern is not only a suggestion; it is a necessity.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
