There is an old adage in the West: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This seems to apply well to the current UN system. It is not broken but it is also not fully functional. And its inadequacies are quite pronounced.

So far, the UN system has served the interests of the global community, recognised the sovereignty of nation-states, maintained the hegemonic balance of powers, and contributed favourably to global economic growth. Most nations have benefited from it, and the organisation has consistently received favourable ratings in Pew Research polls.

Despite this, since the UN's inception, the world has lost at least 10.5 million people due to war, 110 million people have been displaced, and 35.3 million are living as refugees. Half of these numbers could be attributed to superpower-led conflicts. A $3 billion budget from the UN for peacekeeping efforts is a poor match for the global military spending of $2.1 trillion.

The moral purpose of the UN is defeated when the superpowers, as sponsors and guardians of the system, directly get involved in the conflicts. Proxy wars hurt the sustainability of the organisation.

— Dr Abu NM Waheeduzzaman

The UN system demonstrates serious inadequacies. The war in Ukraine, with no end in sight, is another example of its failures. The UN has fallen behind in terms of inclusivity, participation, and power-sharing. Its hegemonic arrangement, with veto powers of a few, is not compatible with the current economic and political reality. For instance, both Germany and Japan exert more economic power than France and the UK. Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkiye can contest the superpowers in terms of GDP and population. As a whole, the emerging nations exhibit more economic power than before. And the model needs to be adapted accordingly.

The representation in the Security Council (SC) also exhibits limitations. It has not been able to accommodate the racial, ethnic, linguistic, and religious representation of the world population. For example, four of the five superpowers are White-majority countries. Religious representation in the SC is similarly lacking and the institution does not feature many of the major ethno-linguistic population groups of the world.

The veto power of the SC has been one of the most contentious topics. Opinions to expand its membership, curtail its power, establish a points system, or eliminate it altogether have been expressed. No serious change has taken place, and it remains a superpower club dominated by the West.

Read more

Time for a fresh look at the UN

The IMF quota system and voting rights give more importance to richer nations. The currency pegging and exchange rate system also favour them in trade and financial transactions. The French CFA arrangement (Communauté Financière d'Afrique or Financial Community of Africa) still binds many African nations to a colonial past.

The dollar is the core of the monetary culture that governs our world. The United States has been able to retain its economic leadership because of the dollar. The monopoly or the economics of the US dollar will not change unless the world is able to embrace a newer political governance structure.

In terms of trade negotiations, we have not been able to conclude the Doha Round that started in 2001. While the pluralistic nature of governance at the World Trade Organization (WTO) is praiseworthy, we need more tangible outcomes. In terms of trade, the UN system still maintains a core-periphery relationship and favours the richer nations.

The UN could not stop the war in Vietnam. It could do little during the two Afghan wars, the wars in Chechnya and Georgia, the wars in the Gulf, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and during most proxy wars. So far, it has been helpless in Ukraine.

The moral purpose of the UN is defeated when the superpowers, as sponsors and guardians of the system, directly get involved in the conflicts. Proxy wars hurt the sustainability of the organisation.

These issues have been broadly discussed in various global fora. Both superpowers and member nations are aware of them. Evidently, the inadequacies are weakening the global system. In such a situation, how can we attain peace?

The superpowers – France, UK, US, and the elitist G7 – are the main sponsors and the primary beneficiaries of the current UN system. The G7 has the political, economic, and military support of the European Union and Nato. The status quo serves the unipolar agenda of the group. As long as it is not broken, they may not feel any urgency for change. But so far, officially, they have not said no to reform.

During the Cold War, the non-aligned movement was a robust Southern bloc. The leaders of the South were strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation. Their contribution during the Korean War, Cuban Missile Crisis, and in global peace is notable. With the fall of the Soviet Union and no detente, the movement has lost its impetus. We are missing both the platform and those leaders who had global visions.

Lately, the BRICS has advanced a new multilateral geopolitical architecture for global cooperation. The organisation's quick success is admirable. It is seemingly aiming to counter Western dominance in global governance. Its southern expansion to Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE in 2024, announced at the 2023 BRICS Summit in August, is notable. It is possible that we will see a new name, revised vision, and revised agenda of the BRICS. But, as of now, reforming the UN is not an agenda item of this group. Currently, internal disagreements within the member countries are substantive, which can hinder their progress. China and India have disputes as India is part of the Quad, a perceived anti-China group. The Western efforts to ostracise Russia and contain China will continue to test their bond. Expansion is likely to prompt more challenges.

The BRICS' identity is a fundamental issue. It is neither a trade bloc (such as the European Union), nor a military alliance (as is Nato). In order to keep its momentum, the group will have to show some tangible success. Floating an alternative to the dollar or instituting a SWIFT-like transaction system could result in a moral boost. It can be a respectable force in reforming the UN and perpetuating better global governance in the long run.

The UN is nearly 78 years old. The world has undergone meaningful political, economic, and technological transformations over these years. China, Russia, and the emerging nations are critical components of the global system. They exert substantive economic power. Technology and globalisation have brought the world much closer together.

Under the current circumstances, a unipolar strategy from the West is not tenable. Ostracisation of Russia or containment of China are not pragmatic policies, as far as global governance is concerned. A disintegration or defeat of Russia is not in the best interest of the global community and providing an opportunity to unleash nuclear arsenal is certainly a bad idea. Lest we forget, the strangulation of Germany led to World War II.

Read more

Don't let world leaders put us through World War III

What the world needs is an honest and open consensus for reform. Superpowers, emerging nations, and the Global South must agree to a reform that would save the UN from underperforming or breaking apart. The ideology of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" could put the UN in the same trap as the League of Nations. A breakdown could result in World War III.

A pragmatic approach to reforming the UN should encompass the following: 1) acknowledging the power of the hegemons; 2) resuming nuclear disarmament talks; 3) establishing a representative multipolar world; 4) instituting a fair financial and trading system; 5) pursuing sustainable development; and 6) offering long-term peace.

Let us fix the UN together, before it is too late.

Dr Abu NM Waheeduzzaman is a professor of Marketing and International Business at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi.

Views expressed in this article are the author's own.

Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission. 

A senior UN official has said India's prospects of securing permanent membership of the UN Security Council may get boosted if it goes past China to become the world's most populous nation in 2023.

Director of the Population Division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) John Wilmoth said on Monday (July 11, 2022) that India's emergence as the country with the largest population could lead to "certain claims on things", our New Delhi correspondent reports.

"What is the significance of being the largest population in the world? I think you have certain claims on things. I wonder what will happen in terms of the discussion around...roles at the UN and the roles of the permanent five members of the Security Council.

"If India becomes the largest country, they may think that gives them a claim that they should be part of ...they've been claiming that they should be part of that group (permanent member of the Security Council) anyway. But, you know, it may strengthen their claim," Wilmoth said while responding to a question on the implications of India surpassing China during a press conference in New York at the launch of the UN report on global population.

India has since long been pressing for reforming the UN Security Council, saying it should reflect the current global political and economic realities and New Delhi deserves a place as a permanent member of the Council.

The World Population Prospects 2022 report said India is projected to overtake China as the world's most populous country next year.

India's population now stands at 1.412 billion in 2022, compared to China's 1.426 billion, added the report. India is projected to have a population of 1.668 billion in 2050, ahead of China's 1.317 billion people by the middle of the 21st century.

The United Nations may not have enough money for staff salaries next month if member states don’t pay what they owe, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned on Tuesday.

He told the 193-member UN General Assembly’s budget committee that if he had not worked since January to cut spending then “we would not have had the liquidity to support” the annual gathering of world leaders last month.

“This month, we will reach the deepest deficit of the decade. We risk ... entering November without enough cash to cover payrolls,” said Guterres. “Our work and our reforms are at risk.”

The United States is the largest contributor - responsible for 22 percent of the more than $3.3 billion regular budget for 2019, which pays for work including political, humanitarian, disarmament, economic and social affairs and communications.

Washington owes some $381 million for prior regular budgets and $674 million for the 2019 regular budget. The US mission to the United Nations confirmed the figures.

An official from the US mission said the United States “will be providing the vast majority of what we owe to the regular budget this fall, as we have in past years.”

“Overall the United States, as the largest contributor to the UN, contributes roughly $10 billion annually in assessed and voluntary contributions across the United Nations system,” the official said.

US President Donald Trump has said Washington is shouldering an unfair burden of the cost of the United Nations and has pushed for reforms of the world body. Guterres has been working to improve UN operations and cut costs.

UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said 129 countries had paid their dues for 2019 so far, which amounted to almost $2 billion.

Guterres said he introduced extraordinary measures last month to cope with the shortfall - vacant posts cannot be filled, only essential travel is allowed, and some meetings may have to be canceled or deferred. UN operations in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi and at regional commissions will be affected.

UN peacekeeping missions are funded by a separate budget, which was $6.7 billion for the year to June 30, 2019, and $6.51 billion for the year to June 30, 2020.

The United States is responsible for nearly 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget but has pledged to pay only 25 percent - as required by US law. Washington currently owes some $2.4 billion for peacekeeping missions.

The top contributing countries are Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Rwanda. They pay their troops according to their national salary scales and are reimbursed by the United Nations. As of July 2019, the United Nations paid $1,428 a month per soldier.

The United Nations says its peacekeeping operations cost less than half of 1 percent of world military expenditures.

The three devastating earthquakes last week that rocked Turkey and Syria have claimed the lives of more than 41,000 people (as of 3:30 pm Bangladesh time, February 15) and caused the displacement of millions in the region. While the international community did come forward with aid and rescue efforts to support the affected people, Syria – war-ravaged and in the grips of abject poverty and inexplicable human sufferings – was given a second-class treatment.

From sanctions imposed by the West, including the US, to the international community's slow response in pledging aid and support and mobilising resources – except for a few countries including Bangladesh – to the earthquake-ravaged Bab al-Hawa land crossing connecting northwest Syria with Turkey (the only access point internationally acknowledged), aid reaching Syria has been inadequate, to say the least.

Read more

The world mustn't fail Turkey-Syria earthquake victims

In the aftermath of the earthquakes, volunteer group the White Helmets, also known as the Syria Civil Defence, which operates in the rebel-held northern areas, took on the rescue operations and saved thousands from under the rubbles of levelled infrastructure with their bare hands, thanks to an acute shortage of rescue tools. Videos and pictures flooded the internet as White Helmets struggled to rescue as many people as they could. Meanwhile, in the critical first 72 hours, when chances of saving lives and rescuing people are the highest, the world watched the human tragedy intensify in Syria, like silent spectators.

Death toll in Syria currently stands over 5,800 (as of 3:30 pm Bangladesh time, February 15). With every passing hour, chances of finding survivors are becoming slimmer.

Read more

Shaking of the ground

While initially adamant, in the face of continued criticism from various quarters, including the United Nations – Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, "This is a moment in which everybody must make very clear that no sanctions of any kind should interfere with relief to the population of Syria in the present moment." – international organisations, relief and rescue organisations, and human rights bodies, the US has finally relented and exempted earthquake aid into Syria from sanctions for 180 days. But not before the damage has been done and the critical 72-hour window has closed.

Even the UN acknowledged their failure to reach the much needed aid and relief supplies to Syria, in the face of the denunciation from the rescue workers working night and day. "We have so far failed the people in northwest Syria. They rightly feel abandoned. Looking for international help that hasn't arrived," tweeted Martin Griffiths, UN's aid and relief chief.

It was shocking to see that no aid convoys reached the affected areas in Syria for the first three days after the earthquakes. Damage sustained by the Bab al-Hawa crossing have been cited as the reason. However, this could have been avoided had the West, for once, risen above the politics of aid and worked hands-on with the Assad regime and the opposing forces to provide for the victims, equitably.

Syria is already struggling from the shocks of a 12-year civil war; the Syrian people have been subjected to the vicious trauma of war, death, poverty and displacement— 6.9 million people are internally displaced and about 13,000 children have endured death or sustained injuries since 2011. A UN report released last year revealed that more than 306,000 civilians have been killed in the civil war that began in March 2011. Around 13 million people – about half the country's population – have been forcibly displaced during this time.

Read more

World must ramp up support for quake victims

Some of the people have been displaced up to 20 times since the civil war unfolded. They have very limited access to food (more than 12 million people are food-insecure in Syria, which has seen an increase of 51 percent since 2019), safe accommodation, medical care or basic utility supplies.

These should have been enough reasons for the international community to rise above politics and come to the aid of the Syrian people in the aftermath of the earthquakes. Unfortunately, that was not the case. Even before the earthquake, only 50 percent of the required USD 4 billion aid could be secured. And even as lives in Syria got buried – perhaps forever – under the wreckage of the earthquake, the White Helmets could do little to save lives, despite their best efforts, due to a lack of resources.

"We could have saved many more people if we had the technology and heavy machinery needed to lift debris… All of the aid and necessary provisions given to the overcrowded relief centres are donated by volunteers, civil organisations and charities on the ground," shared a 26-year-old White Helmets volunteer, Fatima Obeid.

Perhaps kindness and compassion are afforded only to a selected few, and the helpless Syrians are certainly not among them. Had this been the scenario in some Western country – victims with whom people in power can relate to – perhaps it would have elicited empathy and prompted forthcoming support.

The West once again failed the people of Syria, and it did not even come as a surprise. But where the West failed, the others – governments, organisations, and individuals from various corners of the world – rose to the occasion. But Syria needs more. The shortages of aid and relief supplies are acute. The least the countries that have taken advantage of the civil war – directly and indirectly, by participating or by selling arms to and partnering with the attackers – can do is repay the people of Syria for everything they have taken from them.

Tasneem Tayeb is a columnist for The Daily Star. Her Twitter handle is @tasneem_tayeb