• Türkiye deserves gratitude from the world and its peoples for being the first government to point effectively at the biggest design and operational weakness of the UN, namely, the primacy of geopolitics

The author is Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University, and former Special Rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Council on Occupied Palestine.

ISTANBUL

If the United Nations (UN) did not exist in 2024, there would be many voices calling for its establishment. The reality, of course, is that the UN has been around for 79 years and faces what might be its worst crisis of confidence when it comes to war prevention, global security, geopolitical obstruction, and defiance by important members. And yet, despite this recent record of disappointment, many hope that the UN will adapt to 21st-century realities in such a way as to benefit humanity during a time of urgent need.

Multilateral solutions for a better future

In some sectors of public and government opinion, high expectations were generated by the Secretary General’s bold initiative, "Summit of the Future: Multilateral Solutions for a Better Tomorrow," which comes to us on Sept. 22-23 as a complex program of events, activities, and pledges for the world-to-come. Such a reformist framework has been described by UN enthusiasts as a once-in-a-century opportunity to make the UN serve the needs of humanity in a more robust and equitable manner. But this once promising summit has unfolded in an atmosphere of enthusiasm mixed with disappointment and ambiguity. What seems disturbing is that none of the political leaders of the five veto powers in the UN Security Council plan to attend. Also distressing is the observation that in the highly relevant United States (US) presidential elections this November, the political debates between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have proceeded as if the UN did not even exist and were not worth criticizing despite both candidates affirming their intention to have the US continue to run the world.

'The world is greater than five'

As the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, summarized in a few well-chosen perceptive words years ago with the slogan "the world is greater than five," this slogan applies with even greater force today. Any calm survey of the tumultuous events of the past year will end with an ironic question: "Is the world really greater than five?" After a year of UN's helplessness confined to the sidelines of the worst genocide since the Nazi Holocaust, whose daily images of atrocity were broadcast in real-time to the peoples of the world, such a bothersome question is all too relevant and might be rephrased in a more illuminating manner: "The world is greater than three," referencing US, France, and the United Kingdom (UK) that never wavered in their complicit support of Israel, or an even more enlightening slogan of resistance to global hegemony might be "the world is greater than one," a phrase that highlights the US' role as leader of the NATO alliance and of the Western support group that has greenlighted Israeli genocide.

Yet Türkiye deserves gratitude from the world and its peoples for being the first government to point effectively at the biggest design and operational weakness of the UN, namely, the primacy of geopolitics. When it comes to designing the decision to give the biggest winners in World War II an unrestricted veto in the only organ of the UN with the constitutional authority to pronounce binding decisions, it crippled the organization from day one. It gave impunity to the most dangerous countries in the world, as well as to their allies and friends. This core weakness of the UN was symbolically expressed by the Israeli ambassador, who shredded the Charter of the UN from the General Assembly (UNGA) podium in the presence of delegates from around the world. Back in 1945, a Mexican diplomat responded to a query about what to expect from the newly formed UN with these words: “We have created an organization that holds the mice accountable while the tigers roam freely.” This simple expression put in sharp focus the essential flaw of the UN in addressing basic challenges to peace and security in the spirit of its own Charter.

Frustration with the UN grows

This situation is compounded by the failure of these countries, with the partial exception of China, to act prudently and in a manner respectful of international law. The Cold War from the late 1940s to the early 1990s created some excuse for this approach based on geopolitical balance in a world of rival ideologies, but with the Soviet collapse in 1991 there was a golden opportunity to pause geopolitics and serve the global public interest in common security for a highly precarious humanity beset by ecological issues of global scope. The West forfeited this precious historic opportunity to fulfill the obligation of the nuclear weapons states to engage in disarmament negotiations as well as to end, or at least restrict, the right of veto. Such moves would have been dramatic steps to conform world order and the UN to the security requirements of the 21st century, but they were not taken and apparently not even seriously considered.

2024 appears almost certainly to be another instance of a lost opportunity to reform the UN so that it can better serve humanity. In fact, disillusionment with the UN is leading important countries to go elsewhere than the UN to satisfy national policy goals, especially for international trade and financial arrangements. The formation of recent coalitions, including the BRICS or China’s cooperative framework, are potentially subversive blows to the reputation and relevance of the UN.

Despite these big-picture disappointments with the UN, we should not overlook its relative apolitical operations in such functional sectors as development, health, hunger, human rights, culture, and environment. These activities quietly improve the quality of daily life for many millions, especially in the least developed countries and among vulnerable minorities. The success of this functional UN contrasts with the UN’s disappointing record when it comes to the management of global security and war prevention, as well as in relation to atrocities and, above all, its impotence in the face of such clear instances of genocide as in Gaza.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.