Getty Images (via: bit.ly)

Opinion by Matthew Bryza, Sanusha Naidu, and Simbal Khan

After a year of virtual meetings, world leaders and diplomats sat in New York attended the UN General Assembly. Climate change, and access to the CoVid-19 vaccine, were major concerns ahead of the UN summit in Glasgow. UN Secretary-General says growing mistrust between nations is making it difficult for the United Nations to deal with global crises. He is particularly concerned about relations between China and the United States. Calling it completely inactive, Antonio Guterres called on the two superpowers to mend fences or risk splitting the world into a new Cold War. Will there be global cooperation on major issues?

"The cold war created clear rules and there was the conscience of the problem and of the risks, namely, the risk of nuclear destruction, and that allowed to create a number of mechanisms. There were several forms to guarantee that things would not get out of control... With all these differences, one thing is clear we have only one planet and all these countries are powerful enough for the fact that they are at thoughts with each other completely to be a mechanism that undermines our capacity to deal with the global challenges we face," he said.

This year's session was a turning point in many major areas. The World Health Organization is urging more countries to set ambitious goals for carbon neutrality. An analysis by the United Nations shows that global emissions will be 16% higher in 2030 than in 2010. It also seeks to ensure equal access to vaccines against the coronavirus. The World Health Organization says 70pc of Covid19 doses are given in only 10 countries. It also needs to decide how to approach the new governments in some countries - the Taliban occupation of Afghanistan and the military coup in Myanmar are high on the agenda.

Read more: The US has a strong opponent this time: How new cold war is a bigger challenge for Uncle Sam?

Has the UN failed in its mandate?

The Security Council is definitely failing. Russia and China oppose anything proposed by the three permanent members, the US, the United Kingdom, and France. Therefore, the Security Council is considered the highest body in terms of international law-making, but it does not have a mechanism for enforcement.  It failed, but the United Nations did something great in terms of delivering humanitarian aid, promoting cooperation, and raising awareness about humanitarian issues around the world. UNICEF does a great job of helping children, but overall it is a disorganized organization and its ambitions are usually far beyond its reach. We see now that the World Health Organization has not really been able to do much to respond to the pandemic. However, as mentioned earlier that UNICEF does a great job. But as a whole when it comes to multilateralism, it's not delivering on that.

The division between North and South:

The world we live in today is divided between the United States and Europe on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other, or between the North and the South. It has been decades since the North and South disagreed on how to allocate resources. We see that even in the war on climate change where the so-called western countries or the northern or rich countries are not fulfilling the promises they have made to help the developing countries which are not really responsible for the climate change crisis. It is true that if UN were a company, it would probably break up. But it is an extraordinary organization with sovereign member states and UN reform is a perennial topic. Another reason for the UN's failure is its membership. it is too big to forge an agreement among 193 member states.

Question of Global dialogue: Unequal power distribution is the major hurdle

Global Dialogue is also the question of how you organize the dialogue and what you want the dialogue to be basically covered. You can talk about big-ticket issues like climate change, peace development, and stability. You may be talking about the fact that human rights issues have increased in the context of Covid19, but it is also about the question of how you create prosperity and common and shared peace and stability for all. There is a comprehensive development agenda. More importantly, how do you redistribute power on the world stage is the biggest challenge. No one wants to give up their power and be seen as weak in terms of the dynamics of power. The fact that while the world still reflects an imbalance of power, this tension will continue to arise. Who is going to decide that it is going to be decarbonized and moving towards a better carbon, a better environmental impact? There are a lot of questions here and the challenge is how you put these agreements into practice.  Also how to make them workable and functional by powerful states considering one another as adversaries.

Is there a need for another organization?

We live in an unequal world. The UN system has sought to operate in a world where inequality is growing within the region, within the countries, and across the globe. After World War II, there was a struggle before the 'End of History’ and hope that this unjust distribution of power and wealth might be settled but not settled. Then we came to the ‘End of history’ where apparently the capitalist world had won. We had a unipolar system where the world was dominated by America. I think at this stage we saw a bit more room for multilateralism because a lot of the collective action between the countries was being led by the West or basically the American leadership. But over the past two decades, we have seen a shift in global power. You see it as a change in a multipolar world. So multilateralism is now a challenge in a multipolar world. How do you work together in a country, in a world, or in a system where: first, they are growing security and political challenges and mainly Russia and China are cohesing together in a block against some old Western power centers. Then you have new centers of power like India. Therefore, like some areas, the UN is still functional, for example, the fastest action we've ever seen in Afghanistan is being taken by a UN humanitarian operation. While all other countries are attacking and still thinking about how to take collective action at the political and security level for the capture of the Taliban. The United Nations is increasingly considered for its humanitarian work. That’s why we need the UN system, despite its problems. But on the growing multidimensional divide in the multipolar world where your concerns with China are growing, you have seen that AUKUS--a new treaty-- between the United States and Australia so far divides the whole of Europe. I fear that multilateral collective action is becoming more difficult.

Read more:  Afghanistan Humanitarian crisis and the role of the US

Question of multilateralism, shared values, and state choices:

What's more, we need a place where people or countries can come together, where sovereign states can exchange ideas and wherever possible, try to pull in the same direction. In my diplomatic career, I have always felt that it was important to maintain a systematic form of government or practice among the sovereign states, as it was very difficult to establish them in the first place. And it is really difficult for countries to agree on the same principles and norms. So this is really something we need to keep safe because we have the best. But the big problem is that the United Nations was created in a spirit of shared interest where everyone in the Security Council - after the horrors of world wars, the Holocaust, and everything else - wanted to restart and try to work. We gained something from this effort, known as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But in reality, Russia and China do not accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reject and weaken the whole system of principles that must be supported, nurtured, and protected by the United Nations. The world is a cruel place. Power really does mean something, and often power can really destroy the best plans that are based on a beautiful and shared vision of doing well for humanity. (Matthew)

National sovereignty and the role of the UN:

Secretary-General, Antonia Guterres, has made it very clear that multilateralism is the way forward. He said this in several interviews. He keeps sending the same message to everyone, but he is dealing with 198 sovereign nations. He can no longer command these nations. Even the definition of national sovereignty, wealth, and nation-states is linked to a sense of power. I mean, we appreciate the nation-state system with the level of elements of power that these countries have. There are some securities that hold national sovereignty. We have a big problem with this when it is central to the role of the United Nations in the whole framework of a responsibility to protect it. This whole building of responsibility for security has never received that global acceptance in the sovereign nations, especially in the South. We thought it would be a tool for the United Nations to intervene, or basically, for the United Nations to become a front for the major world powers to interfere in their internal affairs. Hence, national sovereignty has always been at odds with multilateralism. How China is even defined? How China's role is defined in the future is determined by how much naval power China is building or how much expansion China is gaining through CPEC, not on the basis of China's role in patronizing multilateralism. (Simbal)

Role of individuals in patronizing global cooperation:

It's difficult to think that any organization will ever be able to force very powerful state actors to do what state actors want to do. The problem is that it's simply a fancy word like patriotism or just selfishness. I mean, if the crisis of Covid-19, which really affects everyone, the United States can't bring everyone together. Then, we have a fundamental problem of selfishness in countries that have vaccines. Of course, there are millions of people in the United States having humanitarian tendencies and the United States is providing billions of dollars worldwide for vaccines, but that is not enough. The head of the World Health Organization, Gabriel Jesus, has repeatedly said that the United States and other countries should not move towards booster shots. In Africa where only 2% of the population has been vaccinated, whereas about 70 percent of the population in the United States had their first dose and 58% have received their second dose. We all need to be better human beings and be mindful of what is happening in the world beyond our borders.  I'm really disappointed if organizational reform is going to improve human character, but hopefully, climate change and the question of our existence will bring us together. (Matthew)

A universal value system is imminent:

The real challenge really lies in the question of how we can advance this value of human security, and more importantly, the question of collective humanity. But the challenge is how we are going to create a larger universal value system that is not necessarily unique to specific countries or regions or specific ideological leanings. Rather, it is just one and complete universal value system. Because if we are going to say that climate change is an existential threat to humanity, then surely what we are seeing now in the UN system is useless because if humanity is reaching a critical point for its survival. (Sanusha) The League of Nations was disbanded after World War II simply because it failed. It failed to stop the horrors of this particular war. Then we almost rebranded and we became the United Nations. It's been 30 years and there is no real action on climate change. 

UN steps in, as said earlier, in many areas where there is no other organization appearing for assistance and prompt action. There are some areas where it is certainly a very controversial debate how do we define universal values. SDGs in their basic way get some universal values ​​that are not contested by member states. The United Nations is currently providing such assistance and capacity building. So we don't need to end the UN. Although it is not able to deliver on a mandate for which it was established, we do not have any other thing to replace it. (Simbal)


Matthew Bryza, former US diplomat and senior fellow at the Atlantic council:

Sanusha Naidu, a senior research fellow at the institute for global dialogue a South African think tank:

Simbal Khan, peace and security consultant at UNDP Pakistan:

Subscribe to our website and allow notifications for more in-depth analytical articles.