Why there is a Dire Need of Reforms in the UN & its Diplomatic Attitude towards Global Issues?
Global Law Assembly.
The United Nations has been something beyond a worldly experiment, I must say. The achievements of this organization have been significant, no doubt. From establishing regimes of multilateral frameworks and agencies to better and civilized means to adopt consensus, confidence-building and solutions, it is the UN which has played a significant role. There is no doubt in accepting the fact that the UN was built between the Second World War and the Cold War era. There is no ounce of the doubt to reconcile that American International Law dominated the constitutionalist thinking of the UN, coupled with the contributions of the Europeans to some extent. Nation-states have contributed to the jurisprudence of human rights, economic securitization, international trade and global warming for much longer, and the UN has been reasonable to support the very cause behind. However, things have changed, and some people are thinking there is some 'League of Nations' moment with the UN. In reality, that is not the case for today. The Economist, Foreign Policy and even New York Times emphasize on a decolonized United Nations. Most of the international law scholars assert views that the United Nations either do not need the Veto power, or they do need to increase the permanent membership for the leverage of actions. The legal approach to enable solutions have transformed, but they lack political reality. Other than this, the UN also has significant issues which make it unstable as a body to handle amidst multipolarity and multialignment. There is a high lack of discourse when it comes to reforms and criticism of the UN. Many people stand to defend the multilateral dictates of the organization, but never realize that the organization and its agencies are in fact responsible for innumerable problems that these intra-state actors have portrayed, unfortunately.
This, unfortunately, is related to those people, who misused the liberal and free ideals of the rules-based international order. I must admit the European Union is nonetheless is also a victim of the same problem. For example, a comment of the UN Secretary-General on the COVID19 Pandemic and the whataboutery relished in the phrase "millennia of patriarchy have resulted in a male-dominated world with a male-dominated culture" - is shameful and unreasonable.
Let me explain why is this unreasonable. The issue of women being affected more economically, socially and individually has nothing to do with the constructs of patriarchy. There is no denial of the fact that discrimination on the basis of sex or gender is unreasonable and must be addressed with a sense of equality of opportunity. However, it is not within the scope of the UN Secretary-General to make less responsible and unproven statements. He could have stated that due to lack of equality of economic, individual and social opportunity - amidst this pandemic, women have been disproportionately affected. Even the stats prove the same to the extent of reasonability. However, making such vile and openly rogue statements is a lack of sportsmanship from the head of an international organization, which, agreeably, according to the Indian PM, Narendra Modi (as per his UNGA 75th Session, 2020 speech), was not available when the organization was needed the most.
The Twitter spat of the United Nations did not stop there. Have a look at the Twitter feed of UN Women. Here is a mention of these Tweets, which really show a weird picture of what UN Women stands for.
On Tweet 1, the real problem starts with the political honesty of the idea of Feminism. Since that is yet controversial considering the disparities in the way national-level cases are being dealt in both the Global North and Global South regions, it is clear that feminism has its own real political cracks, which itself make the phenomenon questionable.
On Tweet 2, American commentator Ben Shapiro rightly pointed out the unreasonably fallacious tweet rendered by UN Women. The word 'manterruption' has been 'explained' by a New York Times journalist, which by no means serves credibility. Citing frivolous studies and then getting on such statements is a clear shame and a low look towards women empowerment.
More or less, these tweets also show the plight of global progressivism, which is anti-libertarian and anti-civilization. If the United Nations does not understand how it should bear diplomatic and legal etiquette, then it shall not help the organization in any ways possible.
There are some more issues with the UN, which we must discuss, and I leave it to the reader for the purpose of thought:
The hypocrisy of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court over charging war crimes and other crimes within the definitions of the Rome Statute;
The hypocrisy of electing and appointing delegation and presidentship to authoritarian regimes (in terms of human rights) to Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, China and more;
The hypocrisy of the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights towards India, the US & Israel and a clear interventionist misuse of its mandate and privileges under international law;
The hypocrisy of the World Health Organization in handling the COVID19 pandemic;
Reports of mistreatment of women and children by the UN Peacekeeping Forces in the Central African Republic;
Controversy over the credibility of the climate change reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
The UN's approach of international law and the global south;
The Problems with Responsibility to Protect;
The Hypocrisy of UNICEF, UNESCO and other UN agencies and programmes in handling crises and controversial matters;
Thus, if anyone starts shouting on the UNSC Veto Power complex, please ask them about these issues as well.
Disclaimer: The views reflected in this piece do not necessarily reflect that of the Executive Board of the Global Law Assembly, nor any of the subsidiaries of Internationalism.