Will United Nations reform remain elusive?

During the UN's lifespan, the international system has changed. A bipolar world order became a unipolar one with the demise of the USSR, and after a time with the US as the sole superpower, the world now appears to be on the way to a multipolar phase.

Some argue that this latest phase of change has created a state of disarray and that it will remain until a new balance of power is settled.

Regrettably, amid all this change, the UN has not kept pace.

The result is that the Security Council has become unable to live up to the duties set out for it in the UN's Charter, the all-important aim of maintaining international peace.

IMF and World Bank look out of date

And the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund – the institutions set up at the Bretton Woods summit, held as World War II was still being fought, and drawn up as a new monetary order for the globe – are also looking out of date. This matters as both exert influence over the international economy, especially on the global south's most vulnerable countries.

The challenge posed by changing times is not new for the UN. It has always needed to reflect fairly the ever-changing power dynamics of the international system. This is only possible via reforms that genuinely reflect the world's balance of power.

Along with this challenge comes a contradiction, and one which is the founding factor of the difficulty faced: The UN is at once the reflection of the balance of international power – although captive to the geopolitics of the end of World War II ­– and at the same time, it is supposed to be an agent for change.

This paradox complicates the process of reforming the UN, and the dilemmas it creates are all the more complicated when the international system is in a state of flux.

And ever since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the international system has been in transition.

The past 30 years have witnessed conflicting trends: globalisation alongside insular nationalism, liberal economic policies and increased state intervention; open and free trade, and increased protectionism.

There has been increased movement of people across international borders and the erection of barriers – both physical and institutional – to stop migration.

The free flow of information has opened the way for malicious manipulation. Unprecedented wealth has been created, along with the greatest inequality in its distribution in history.

This background has brought with it the challenges faced by the UN. And it comes amid different approaches adopted by the industrialised countries in the West and those of the global south on economic and social matters.

On the Security Council, disagreements among permanent members are complicating its critical role in maintaining international peace and security.

All its members – at least on the surface – agree about the need for reforms. But reform means different things to different countries. It is at its most glaring between the developed and the developing world.

Southern discomfort

The Global South wants an increased role in decision-making, particularly on the Security Council, so that its interests are better reflected. This is driven by frustration at the inability of the permanent members to allow the Security Council to function properly.

But it also reflects a growing frustration at the limited influence of the Global South to shape the international economic order. This explains why the global south is at the forefront of the push for genuine UN reform to change the status quo.

At the moment, the West exercises the most influence and makes up the main contributions to the UN's regular budget as well as being the main source of voluntary contributions.

To the West, reform means cutting waste and increasing the efficiency of delivery. At the same Western powers seek to preserve – if not enhance ­– their influence in managing the organisations that constitute the UN system, including over the disbursement of funds to finance operational activities.

It gives the West inordinate influence over the priorities set for development assistance. This is particularly apparent in conflict and post-conflict situations.

China and Russia support reforms that would increase their influence and reduce the West's.

The reform process has been long drawn out and has ebbed and flowed. It started in the 1960s when UN membership enlarged. As this happened, the non-permanent membership of the Security Council was expanded, but methods of work did not change, making it a substantive but incomplete change.

Peacekeeping

There was a bigger innovation earlier – in the 1950s – by introducing the concept of peacekeeping. This was a significant change, and it was designed to overcome the failure of the permanent members of the Security Council to agree on a UN force as envisaged by the Charter.

The 1973 oil crisis brought a move to reform the international economic institutions. It included calls to address the decision-making processes at both the World Bank and the IMF.

In 1974, the General Assembly initiated a review of the UN Charter, focusing on more equitable representation in the Security Council and limiting the use of the veto. In 1992, the Security Council itself became engaged in the process. To date, there is no agreement.

Likewise, World Bank and IMF reform of the decision-making process has not yielded any substantive change in favour of most member nations.

But none of the efforts at reform have produced a more fair and equitable representation of the Global South in the UN. Success has been limited to positively impacting setting priorities and, to some extent, the methods of its work in the economic and social fields.

Security Council deadlock hobbles conflict resolution

The UN's record at conflict resolution remains poor. This is essentially the result of the inability of the Security Council to discharge its duties due to differences between its permanent members. 

Nowhere have the failures been more glaring than in the Middle East and Africa.

The UN has been unable to progress toward resolving the Palestinian tragedy.

It was the UN that voted for the partition of Palestine in 1947. Since then, the world has witnessed the flourishing of the Jewish state, Israel, and the continued occupation and untold suffering of the Palestinian people, who have been unable to establish their own state.

The UN could not prevent the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1979 and the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003. The world also stood by when the genocide took place in Rwanda in 1994.

A revealing agenda

UN shortcomings are on show at this year's ongoing regular session of the General Assembly. All the ministerial and high-level meetings have been devoted to economic themes, such as the Sustainable Development Goals, climate, pandemic-related issues or health care.

There was no emphasis on international peace and security. The agenda looked like an acknowledgement of the UN's limited ability to address issues at the heart of global instability.

Meanwhile, the annual meeting of the World Bank and the IMF, in Marrakesh, shows little prospect of producing the necessary reforms in decision-making in these two organisations despite the repeated calls by developing countries.

Opportunistic lip service

The reason reform is so hard to establish on the Security Council is the resistance from its permanent members in accepting a reduced or restricted role for their nation. Only opportunistic lip service has been paid to the idea of change.

The US is a good example. Washington expressed support for reform last year, seeking backing for its position on Ukraine and to prevent closer relations with its main rivals, China and Russia. It did the same in the late 1990s over conflict in the Balkans.

Other permanent members tend to do the same, seeing any meaningful reform as a remote prospect due to disagreements among the nations in the global south. And the proliferation of international groups representing the southern countries could make any unity harder to reach.

Reform is also becoming more difficult to achieve as non-governmental organisations, or NGOs, play more of a role in setting international agendas. The UN was set up to represent nations, not these kind of groups.

Then there is the way UN activities are funded. With budgets dependent on voluntary contributions, the providers of the funds can use the programmes to further their own interests, rather than the needs of the recipients.

Genuine reform depends on these factors being addressed.

When it comes, reform should boost participatory governance by creating a more equitable representation at decision-making level of the key institutions of the Security Council, the World Bank and the IMF.

And assistance granted on a humanitarian basis and for development should be isolated as far as possible from national political agendas.

Reform will be the subject of competition between the main powers in a multipolar world – between the US and its allies on the one hand and, both China and Russia on the other.

Only when the evolving international system settles into a new and more realistic balance of power will the UN be able to undertake the necessary reforms that will make it more effective in discharging its mission as set out in its Charter.