There is nothing guaranteed to us in this world but our shared humanity and willingness to act on it in service of others. Last week, the United Nations General Assembly met in New York at its headquarters on Sept. 18. During the organization's meetings this week, many countries, such as the United States, used the assembly as a means to push ideological divisions instead of promoting world unity and international peace.
Yet, the purpose of the U.N. is to act as a deliberative body, discussing how we can avoid devastating outcomes and instead benefit citizens around the globe. As countries, we delegate our elected representatives to speak on our behalf, advocating for global policies to keep us safe in an increasingly connected world. Essentially, we employ democratic principles to tackle challenging and often undemocratic problems in our world.
To understand why we continue to need the U.N., we must consider its history. The U.N. was formed on Oct. 24, 1945, after 29 nations had ratified the written charter outlining collective safety measures following World War II. That postwar creation was a means for nations, no matter their population or geographic size, to have a voice in international decisions.
Over time, the U.N. has deliberated over many major world conflicts. Every issue that arises acts as an affront to the very democratic nature of the organization’s purposes. Instead of promoting peace, the U.N. has slowly taken the role of the world’s manager, lauding nations for limiting military arsenal while slapping others on the wrist for waging war.
Countries are stoking division at a time when the world is at serious conflict. Consider the Doomsday Clock, which is created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which explains how close humanity is to annihilation at the hands of man-made technological elements. This January, the clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been in its history.
The very countries that formed the backbone of the organization now act as silent players with their own agendas, unwilling to cooperate when tasked with furthering humanity’s progress.
For example, the U.S. and European Union rejected a proposal by many member countries of the U.N. to prepare for and better respond to pandemics. Dr. Erica Schwartz, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the proposal included “divisive ideologies that lack definitional consensus.”
Han Zheng, vice president of the People’s Republic of China, made it a point to allude to the consequences of trade wars and economic development in the world. After recent tariffs imposed on China by the Trump administration, Zheng’s wording implies a pointed attack rather than a call for global unity.
The combined acts of those major players are like three trains intersecting at one point on a rail line. Each is moving very quickly with its own destination, and no consensus can be reached as to how they’ll move forward.
At its core, that is the problem of the deliberative function of the U.N. When faced with global challenges, countries advocate for their own interests instead of the collective security their forebears called for when they made this council.
Yet, 73% of Americans believe the U.N. is doing a poor job of maintaining international peace and security. The very trust that we place in the U.N. weakened over decades, resulting in a lame duck deliberative body with little preventative power.
That is promoting security without soundness. It’s letting ourselves enter the dark without a flashlight.
Despite that, all hope is not lost. We must remember that the organization was founded as a tool against the Axis powers at the end of World War II. The very idea of the U.N. was to create a global representative body that prevents things like war and human suffering.
By limiting the time countries dedicate to their own policy priorities, we can reclaim space to talk about global imperatives, like limiting nuclear arsenals or tackling climate change.
The U.N. isn’t the final negotiator to end all wars; it’s the place to talk about them. By limiting governments’ discussion about their interests, we can move the U.N. from being a benevolent manager to a brawny mediator.
The Post editorials are independent of the publication’s news coverage. Have thoughts? The Post can be reached via editor@thepostathens.com.
