Originally published on the CGS blog on March 6, 2015.
On February 23rd, the United Nations Security Council held a debate on the Purposes and Principles of the UN Charter. There, US Ambassador Samantha Power made a plea for the Council, and the UN, to reaffirm its commitment to the principles laid out in the Charter. Most importantly, she urged the council to “recommit ourselves to these people – individuals in every one of our states whose basic dignity the Charter is meant to defend and uphold.”
It’s no secret that the UN isn’t the world’s best problem-solver. Even the body itself has admitted a failure to limit or stop certain events, such as the atrocities in Syria or rape in Darfur. Part of this is from inaction: many argue that it is too hard to pass a resolution, especially on the Security Council where each member’s veto power leaves propositions dead in their tracks. Power puts it best when she says, “divisions among Member States continue to prevent the Council from taking action…or even speaking in one voice to condemn the violence and call for meaningful accountability.”
But even when resolutions do pass, nothing really seems to change. Hiding behind strongly worded memos, the UN often fails to “exercise the political will and take the action needed to actually preserve international peace and security.” Power argues that part of doing this is coming up with “more effective ways to pressure” states that disregard UN/international rules, norms, and obligations.
What would some of those ways be? Power suggests that simply by showing unified support for resolutions, the UN will move toward being more effective. She cites North Korea as an example, stating that, “by shining a light on the unspeakable violations being perpetrated every day in the DPRK, UN action is helping to galvanize broader pressure on the regime to end abuses that were ignored for far too long.”
This makes sense: peer pressure can be very effective. Peer pressure can be especially important when it comes to the issue of state sovereignty, which many states argue “precludes the UN’s engagement on these issues [of human rights violations].” Though our more liberal ideologies may scoff at the very idea of this being a legitimate argument, it is still a regular topic of debate in the international arena. But why? As Power continually points out, the UN’s commitment is to individuals, not states. So why are we so beholden to them?
Part of the reason may be that the UN does not feel representative of individuals; after all, it’s called the United Nations, not the United Individuals. This has prompted many to push for a UN Parliamentary Assembly, something that could be truly representative of the people the body is meant to serve.
While it is easy to say what is wrong with the UN, it is harder to say how to fix it. (And even if you could, the old adage “It’s easier said than done” comes to mind.) However, Power’s speech is a necessary reminder of why the UN was founded in the first place: to “unite us in advancing the safety, security, and human rights of people across the world.” Ideals are often chided as being unreachable, but would we rather have a body founded on the reverse: realism that views crossing a border as more unjust than not protecting people?
Moving forward, the UN must not forget its ideals when facing reality. Reaffirming its founding priciples then, is the first step toward reaching its goals.
