The United Nations’ intervention is in a state of decline. The UN is no longer in the lead role in conflict zones such as Kashmir where it is required to provide intervention.
In most of these areas, powerful members of the Security Council, and regional and sub-regional organizations are taking the lead, pushing the UN to the sidelines.
One needs only to look at how many UN envoys cannot enter the countries where they are supposed to be intervening. Parties to, or backers of, these conflicts sidelined the UN in many intervention processes.
In recent years, powerful five permanent members of the Security Council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States — and others have routinely interfered with the appointment of the secretary-general’s envoys, effectively imposing candidates with little relevant experience. Many envoys have been appointed to countries they have never been to and whose language they do not speak.
The UN has made a great deal of effort since former Secretary General Kofi Annan’s ‘In Larger Freedom’ reform proposals in 2005 to professionalize its intervention processes and establish a series of guidelines that place inclusion at the forefront.
However, the practice continues to lag behind the new standards. The establishment of the outstanding Mediation Unit its very useful Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisors, and the High-Level Advisory Board have all been positive developments, but there is more need to ensure that the UN upholds its intervention standards of consent, impartiality, and inclusivity, particularly in the conflicts that have come to define these past decades.
Earlier this year, the International Centre for Dialogue Initiatives, published a report titled ‘Libya: An Assessment of Twelve Years of UN Mediation.’ It found that political dialogues facilitated by the UN lacked inclusivity and impartiality often undermined by the interests and interference of major powers, a pattern that analysts also see in Syria, Yemen, and other political processes.
The UN is no longer an impartial body with a strong and respected voice globally. People living in conflict-ridden areas are increasingly viewing the UN as promoting the interests of the West and the powerful. However, this was not always the case.
In previous decades, the UN played a major role in facilitating peace processes in many countries and regions around the world such as Cambodia, Namibia, Central America, and Timor-Leste, and numerous dedicated UN officials have paid the ultimate price and lost their lives in the pursuit of peace.
The decline of UN intervention is taking place against a backdrop of the increased polarization of global politics. The continuing monopoly of the three countries, the US, the UK, and France, over the drafting of Security Council resolutions and their undue influence in the secretariat, where they continue to monopolize the leadership of the peace and security departments, has further eroded the UN’s credibility in intervention processes.
The tragic conflict in Ukraine should have presented an opportunity for the UN to play the major intervening role and to act as a bridge between Russia and NATO; in the same way, that Dag Hammarskjold had carved space for the UN to act as a bridge between the East and West during the Cold War. Many countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and South Africa, with other African states, are all vying to play this role, but the UN is nowhere visible.
We believe if the UN is to affect positively people whose lives have been or continue to be traumatized by war, there must be an open discussion on the quality of UN intervention. We strongly believe in a more effective UN that is fully able to address today’s global peace and security issues.
