Photo by Xabi Oregi at Pexels.com

Trigger Warning: This article discusses violence and sexual assault, which may be distressing to some readers.

There are over 300 international organisations. They have numerous functions such as collecting information, monitoring trends, delivering services and aid, and providing forums for bargaining and settling disputes. As globalisation increases, international organisations also help foster relations between states, assisting states to achieve common objectives. While there are many organisations, we will focus on the United Nations. How effective is the UN and how well does it carry out its tasks?

The United Nations maintains international peace and security, protects human rights, delivers humanitarian aid, and upholds international law. The UN has 193 member states in the General Assembly. The UN Security Council consists of 15 members, five of which have veto power (the P5): the US, UK, Russia, China, and France.

The UNSC has passed resolutions to support peace processes, solve disputes, respond to illegitimate uses of force, and enforce sanctions. For instance, the UN got involved in Bosnia in 1992 and Afghanistan in 2001. In 1990, the UN authorised states to use all necessary means to stop Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. The UN supported international sanctions, aiding the ending of apartheid in South Africa in 1994. There were also peacekeeping missions in Namibia (1989-1990) and Cambodia (1992-1993).

Additionally, the UN helped prevent major conflicts such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. But looking deeper, the question arises: Are all these interventions successes? What deems something a success or a failure?

Afghanistan, Bosnia, and the Cuban Missile Crisis were not clear-cut successes. In Afghanistan, the UN helped establish a framework for political transition after the fall of the Taliban. They also provided humanitarian aid, facilitated elections, and reduced landmine hazards. However, the country faced major political instability and increased violence. The intervention to ‘save’ the people led to a US-UK air bombardment that killed innocent civilians. 46,319 civilians were killed, but this is likely an underestimation. While democracy was introduced to help the people, the cost of innocent lives raises serious questions.

In Bosnia, the UN intervention began in 1992. However, the UN failed to protect the 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys who were killed by Serb forces. The UN peacekeeping officials ignored requests from their troops stationed in Bosnia, allowing Serb forces to carry out systematic mass executions and terrorise civilians. Civilians were subjected to rape, beatings, executions, robbery, and other abuses. The forces openly violated ‘safe areas,’ leaving the masses vulnerable. The UN achieved some progress in Bosnia through the Dayton Peace Accords (1995), which ended the Bosnian War. The UNHCR offered refugee support, and the UN helped rebuild institutions and foster democratic governance. But after thousands were massacred under their watch, was it too little too late?

The UN also played a role in de-escalating the Cuban Missile Crisis. It acted as a negotiation platform, and the Security Council facilitated representatives from the US, Cuba, and the USSR. Behind the scenes, Acting Secretary-General U Thant worked as a mediator between US President Kennedy and USSR Premier Khrushchev, appealing to both sides to find a solution without military action. However, the UN was largely sidelined by the two parties, as the US and USSR took negotiations into their own hands. Hence, the resolution was dependent on the two parties’ diplomacy rather than the UN’s intervention.

While these three situations were difficult, and the UN did accomplish some things, we need to ask: As an international organisation, was what they did enough? As an organisation that ‘maintains international peace and security, protects human rights, delivers humanitarian aid, and upholds international law,’ how much have they truly achieved? What about the 8,000 men and boys killed under their watch? What about the Afghan civilians killed by US-UK air forces?

Another problem lies in the Council’s decision-making during crises, which is hindered by political agendas, particularly those of the P5. This is evident in Syria, where Russia vetoed resolutions against the Assad regime, or in Palestine, where the US vetoes any resolution against Israel. Furthermore, vetoes do not always prevent nations from acting independently; for instance, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 despite significant opposition. Similarly, the UN failed to respond effectively to the genocide in Rwanda, where around 800,000 people were killed.

We look at history so we don’t repeat the past. Today, we see many crises in the world: Sudan, Syria, Palestine, Ukraine, Congo, and Afghanistan, to name a few. The United Nations has often failed to act. In Palestine, they do nothing because of the US’ veto. In Syria, for years, they did nothing because of Russia’s veto. China has vetoed resolutions on Myanmar and Zimbabwe for human rights violations. These are just a few examples, and they reveal a common trend. If one of the P5 opposes a resolution, they veto it for their political gain. So how effective can an organisation be if its resolutions are constantly vetoed? And is this the only problem of the United Nations?

Written by Emaan, an International Relations Student at UoL/LSE based in Islamabad, Pakistan.