UN struggles to play peacemaker
Out of the ashes of the Second World War, the United Nations was created to prevent a Third World War. Stunned by a conflict that claimed tens of millions of lives and laid large swaths of the Earth to waste, 51 nations vowed to lay aside their differences and co-operate in new ways to ensure humankind’s survival in the nascent atomic age. But while the organization they formed has grown to 193 members and often acted as force for good over the past 77 years, it has clearly failed to put an end to war. If proof of this was needed, it came with the Russian invasion of Ukraine that began in late February and continues unabated after two bloody months.
The European Union as well as the members of NATO — which includes Canada — have done their best through economic sanctions and arming Ukraine to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to stand down; but to no avail. The United Nations itself has attempted to play peacemaker though with limited results because, sadly, it remains in many ways the disunited nations. And a prime reason for this dysfunction starts at the top, with the structure of the UN’S powerful, 15-member Security Council.
Its primary responsibility is to act as required to maintain international peace and security. In theory, it wields enough clout to at least prod warring states toward these goals. The problem is the Security Council’s five permanent members — the United States, China, the United Kingdom, France and, yes, Russia — all have a veto over the council’s decisions, recommendations and actions. And after its armed forces began bombing and overrunning Ukraine, Russia predictably abused its veto power to paralyze the Security Council.
All this brings us to the overdue but welcome action taken on Tuesday by a broad base of the UN’S General Assembly members, They banded together to subject the Security Council to greater public scrutiny than ever before. Henceforth any Security Council member that vetoes a motion will be brought before the UN’S General Assembly, then called upon to justify its veto while the assembly publicly debates the matter.
As Canadians would expect, their country joined more than 100 other nations in passing the consensus motion to make this possible. And Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, was both outspoken and eloquent in denouncing the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members as “undemocratic.” The Security Council’s deadlock over the invasion of Ukraine has occurred just when action by the council is needed to end the most devastating European war since 1945. In that context, Russia’s use of its veto is “not only shameful” but “contrary to obligations under the UN Charter and to international law,” he said.
Rae’s criticisms are justified. The change he supported is valuable. Even so, it will not rein in Putin’s power or end the war, merely make him more answerable to the world community in a public forum. Whatever its political and moral benefits, this remains a minor victory. Even so, people should neither ignore it nor give up on the UN. Since the war in Ukraine began, the UN has led and co-ordinated a worldwide campaign to deliver badly-needed humanitarian aid to that country, to specifically help its children and assist the millions of Ukrainian refugees fleeing the battle zones. In addition the UN Human Rights Council has established an independent, international inquiry to investigate Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Again, the Russians will do their best to ignore this initiative. Even so, it deserve support for shining a glaring light on Russian atrocities and acknowledging to everyone that the Ukrainian people have been victims of a horrific injustice.
To be sure, all this falls short of stopping the war in Ukraine. The challenges facing the UN in actually doing this aren’t just difficult, they’re next to impossible. Sovereign states — including liberal democracies — are reluctant to cede authority over their affairs to another power, even if it claims to represent the will of the international community. Meanwhile, the Russians have repeatedly warned that direct intervention by the soldiers, sailors and aircrew of another country in Ukraine could escalate that war into a general European conflict that could even involve nuclear weapons. In a world this volatile and hazardous, the United Nations is an imperfect guardian but nonetheless one of the best we could hope for.