Who Takes the UN Seriously Anymore?

by Nick Weber

On January 10, 1946, 51 nations convened for the first United Nations General Assembly in which every member could deliberate and vote on international law with equal representation regardless of economic and military might or political prestige. The newly formed UN was intended to be a functioning revision of the previously ineffectual League of Nations.

From September 10 to 24, 2024, the 79^th session of the UN General Assembly met in New York. The original 1946 session followed the horrific magnitude of World War II, while the 79^th session precedes myriad conflicts lying-in-wait or on the verge of surging. Perhaps while Nazi party officials and the perpetrators of the Holocaust were being held accountable in international courts and trials, no one questioned the validity – and necessity – of international governing bodies. But today, their internal paralysis has never been more apparent.

I am the only person I know who actually observed the 79^th session. They have a very cool tradition; each time the session convenes, Brazil speaks first. This is because at the first session, amid wide hesitancy, Brazil took to the stage to speak for the establishment of international norms, cooperation, and diplomacy. This year, Brazil’s president Lula da Silva took to the stage. He discussed previous successes of the UN, global challenges (recent and new), and some attempts at reinvigorating the spirit of the UN. One of his quotes sticks out to me, but for reasons da Silva did not intend: “We are approaching the end of the first quarter of the 21st century and the United Nations is increasingly weakened and paralyzed.”[1]

What da Silva meant is that the UN maintains some antiquated policies, structures, and norms. Perhaps he would have changed his speech if he were giving the closing remarks, because what I observed during the UN General Assembly was not optimistic or inspiring. It was peak supranationalism; the blind support for all things happy (with no substance), and the manipulation of the institution’s stage by the world’s worst actors and violators of international peace and prosperity.

I will give you my bottom-line right now: The UN’s primary goal seems to be preserving the fractional prestige it still has left. The UN should be a forum for diplomacy and compromise to reign over the worst in our nature. Instead, the state proxies to terrorist organizations and hybrid warfare practitioners took to the stage. The 79^th session showed that the spirit of the UN is better than the institution itself, and that principles of decency, harmony, and cooperation are not yet global norms.

I preface this point by pointing to the polarizing focus of what are quickly becoming the new Axis and Allies; virtually everyone supported a “Pact for the Future” which includes vague guidance and wishes for “peace and security, sustainable development, climate change, digital cooperation, human rights, gender, youth and future generations, and the transformation of global governance.”[2] All good things when they are presented so vaguely. Mind you, the other nations that took to the stage, such as Russia, Qatar, Iran, and China have zero inclination to follow international law; in fact, they don’t.

I only point this out because the UN’s happy focuses fall on deaf ears. The world is still multipolar, whether we believe it or not, and the deaf ears are the nations the UN wants to restrict the most. Instead, good actors (mostly in the West) follow the global “party-line” and are ultimately hamstrung by the guidance and law.

Russia, for example, took to the stage to tout its nuclear arsenal and condemn the West, stating that if Ukraine can use long-range ordnance to strike Russia, that Moscow is within its rights to unleash nuclear Armageddon on NATO.[3] Mind you, Russia is also a permanent member on the UN Security Council; the governing body that requires unanimous support for the UN to deploy forces to conflicts.

China has, all year, violated the sovereign territory of the Philippines. It also aggressively pursues its claims over all the South China Sea despite a UN resolution stating those aggressions are illegal.[4]

The Amir of Qatar took to the stage to say that although Israel had the right to defend itself, that time has passed. He failed to mention that Qatar is a financial and diplomatic supporter of Hamas’ political wing (which is no different from its terror wing).[5]

It was Cuba’s Foreign Minister, of all people, who pointed out the fact of the matter: that the violations of UN charters, rulings, and laws are simply normal.[6] Once again, the context provided mentioned only Israel and the West, the new imperialists, but failed to mention Russia or China, let alone the Iranian funded terrorism across the Middle East.

These speeches are reminiscent of the first-half of the 20^th Century when fascist powers simply launched foreign policy under a very real pretext: What is anyone going to do about it?

Recent speeches and resolutions are typical of the modern UN – some are very well-spirited but remain largely unenforceable. We can suppose that they hold a soft power value in that they give states or organizations an edge in narrative by pointing to certain actions as violations of international law. In the rarest of instances, they might give other nations the legal framework for military intervention. None of this, however, changes the fact that nations like Iran, China, North Korea, and Russia simply do not care. They also set new precedent for other nations to do the same.

What can the UN do? All talks of reform have suggested growing or expanding the current apparatus, such as Security Council membership. But what of restricting or reducing it? That too falls on deaf ears. I simply feel the UN is at a crossroads, and must soon decide what its purpose is. Is it to simply present a stage for everyone and file the paperwork and report to journalists, or can it return to its status as a sentry against the trends of the 20^th century?

_________________________________________

This first appeared in The Havok Journal on October 2, 2024.

Nick Weber is a military officer. His experience includes air command and control operations in the Indo-Pacific. He is a Master’s student of Applied Intelligence and currently writes “The Intel Brief,” a curated foreign policy and national security newsletter for military, business, and academic professionals.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.

---

References

[1] https://www.gov.br/planalto/en/follow-the-government/speeches-statements/2024/09-1/speech-by-president-lula-at-the-opening-of-the-79th-un-general-assembly-in-new-york#:~:text=The%20aspirations%20of%20humanity%20are,the%20way%20for%20the%20future.

[2] https://www.un.org/en/summit-of-the-future

[3] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/watch-russian-foreign-minister-invokes-nuclear-capacity-in-un-speech-condemning-the-west

[4] https://www.un.org/depts/los/doalos_publications/LOSBulletins/bulletinpdf/LOS_91_WEB.pdf

[5]https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1154821?utm_source=theintelbrief.beehiiv.com&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=thursday-morning-brief-23-26-september&_bhlid=3677000ec2fca987f6d0622389ad8db11a77dd4c

[6] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/09/1155116