Looking at the United Nations Universe Through Clearer Lenses

The Seventy Seventh United Nations General Assembly is in sesssion. All the 193 states of the world (although the UN lists also Vatican and Palestine as states they have only an observer status in the organization) are in attendance. State representatives at the Conference present their respective country’s (truly, their current government’s) “official” achievements and their views of international concern to a mostly half-empty hall (except when the President of a major power, or of a country momentarily under a magnifying lens, speaks). The reaction of the general public to this annual ritual is complete disinterest and sometimes farcical or sarcastic. That is unfair, although it is true that this boring “official” statements may be made a little more interest-baring if national non-governmental efforts were also expressed by speakers.

There are two main reasons for this negative public view of the UN. One is intrinsic, the other extrinsic flaw. An approach to understanding the UN must consider the distinction between its two major functions. They are “to maintain international peace and security”, and “to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character ..., human rights and for fundamental freedoms” (Article 1.1 and 1.3 of the Charter). The systemic complication in the procedures of the Security Council, in addition to complexities of international relations in general, constitutes the negative perception intrinsic to the UN. The multiplicity of international organizations with different status in relation with the UN constitutes the extrinsic cause for the public perception of the institution.

As to the systemic flaw, it is the imperfection imbedded in the UN’s constitution, which renders the UN handicapped for taking forcible actions that may sometimes be the only necessary, or the majority’s preferred action. The Security Council is empowered to “determine the existence of any threat to peace” and, if other means for ending the threat “would be inadequate”, to take military action with armed forces to be made “available to the Security Council” (Articles 42 and 43). However, decisions of the Security Council other than procedural matters require the concurrence of the five permanent members of the Council. (Article 23.3). This is from where the veto right of the major powers emanates. Military actions taken in the past all concerned internal conflicts in countries unable to stop large human sufferings, including the one between Palestinians and Israel. No military action can be taken against any of the five permanent members of the Security Council, who have the veto right, or against any country protected by any of the said five powers for that matter. Therefore, although the UN military interventions in some internal conflicts were relatively successful, the UN is powerless in taking military action against a threat by a nuclear power if other means for ending the threat “would be inadequate”. Nevertheless, this limitation on the UN should not be cause for downplaying the importance of the UN platform providing a chance to discuss the threat with a potential agressor.  

Furthermore, a more detailed clarification (or a limitation) of the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council may commit those powers to some restrain in using it and would improve the Council’s public image.

As to the the extrinsic cause, it is the average person’s lack of understanding of the complex structure of the UN. There are numerous agencies specialized in fields specific to each. They are succesful platforms not only for exchange of information and of views between states, also for developing common rules or standards, and technical or financial assistance to member states if and when needed. The work of the specialized agencies is mostly visible to and directly benefitted by people. The public thus appreciate agencies concerned, while overlooking the fact that the agencies are the product of the UN or they entered its orbit for the sake of international cohesion and strength. Most of these agencies report to one or another organ of the UN.

The success of these agencies is due to able, dedicated, and truly international-minded staff of the agencies (Sometimes, higher echelon officials of some agencies may be an exception to this definition because, if not weighing-in in favor of their national views, of their personal ego. This occurence, however, has a negligible effect on the respective organization’s general performance since the higher officials are more subject to replacement than longer-term staff, for the formers’ appointment are in fact the result of political compromises. Formally establishing a term-limit for high level officials may avert this flaw.)

The UN system organizations may be grouped under three types:

The agencies who carry out the UN’s function of “international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character ..., human rights and for fundamental freedoms”, like the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), several agencies in the aviation or sea transport field, and some in humanitarian assistance, etc. The constitutional documents of these organizations generally require annual reporting to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the UN body concerned with economic and social matters. (It is noteworthy that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) does not have a constitutional requirement establishing such close relation to the UN, despite the fact that it is clearly an agency in charge of a social and closely economic matter).

Then, there are the agencies providing a world platform for financial matters, like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction nd Development (IBRD), and the WB Group encompassing International Development Association (IDA), International Finance Corporation (IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). We can add to this category the World Trade Organization (WTO) evolved from the old GATT agreement of 1947, which befittingly cooperates with the financial organizations IMF and IBRD. (Article III.5 of its constitutional document). These financial agencies do not have constitutional requirements to report to the UN, and rightly so. Understandably, they nevertheless closely cooperate with the UN.

A third category is the agencies in charge of regulating the use of certain materials that are potentially related to arms and security matters. They are the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Since they function as watchdogs for peaceful use of the materials in question they have a special status of reporting directly and expeditiously to the Security Council any infraction of such use (IAEA Statute Article III.B.1 and OPCW Agreement Article XII.4).

Despite these three variations they all keep close contact with the UN, which acts as the ultimate platform for the international exchange of information and assistance, or for international effort to maintain peace.

For the sake of completing this overview of international governmental organizations system, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) must also be mentioned. The Court is entirely and understandably independent from the sphere of the UN’s political and technical cooperation duties, because the Court is charged with settling disputes directly between states arising from a breach of international law.

If, therefore, the public at large were to be acquainted with this general and simplified view of the UN system, they may become more appreciative of the UN itself as being the focal point of all inter-governmental efforts for economic and social assistance as well as for avoidance of a threat to peace.

Furthermore, the innumerable international non-governmental civil society organizations operating in specific fields render invaluable services to the world community. The UN cooperates with many of them. This activity of the UN is another laudable contribution to world-wide prosperity and peace, placing the UN                           -metaphorically- to the gravitational center of “international universe” where we should hope to discover more “special satellites”.

September 2022