THE FUTURE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS.








This is a prescient article by Warwick Powell (an Australian Economist) on the future of the UN. I have copied some of the key points as a precis of the article but it merits study. 



'Research published by American scholars Duffy Toft and Koshi in their 2023 book Dying by the Sword, shows that the US initiated 2.4 military interventions on average each year between 1946 and 1990; and that between 1991 and 2019, this increased to 3.7 interventions per year on average. The UN could do nothing about this.......The UN was never intended as a neutral world government or governance architecture with global purview; it was born as a forum where hegemonic power could be dressed in multilateral language.....the sense of western liberal superiority that came with unbridled political and economic power cast its shadow, as western ‘values’ were pushed as ‘universal’ values. As for the UN’s security function, it was circumscribed by bipolar rivalry.....The UN was a state-centric institution, and was designed to represent sovereign states as the sole agents of international order. Yet the very problems driving decolonisation - structural dependency, unequal terms of trade and cross-border capital flows - were transnational in character. The UN was structurally ill-equipped to address the economic dimensions of sovereignty, ensuring its General Assembly rhetoric often outpaced its practical effectiveness.....Far from preventing wars, the UN was sidelined by the very hegemon that claimed to uphold a “rules-based international order.” The notion of the “rules based international order” increasingly replaced the idea of international law, which effectively saw the dilution of the UN functionally as American primacy dictated terms....Economic sanctions and tariffs, once formidable instruments of U.S. coercion, are increasingly blunted by South–South cooperation and diversified supply chains.....global problems are in practical terms now managed by a patchwork of overlapping institutions and regimes, rather than by a single hierarchical authority....The UN’s weakness is not proof of institutional futility. Rather, it reflects the material conditions under which it has operated: U.S. hegemony after 1945, Cold War bipolarity, the asymmetries of decolonisation, and the distortions of unipolarity all constrained the potential of the UN to function....Today’s world presents new possibilities. The U.S. is no longer able to act with impunity across the entire globe and in all facets of global affairs. Military balances are more contested; economic power has shifted toward Asia; and the Global South is increasingly capable of withstanding Northern pressure...The UN should not be seen as failing simply because it is not the sole arbiter of global order. Rather, it functions as part of a wider lattice of institutions, each addressing specific dimensions of transnational governance. The challenge is to reform the UN so that it plays a central, coordinating role within this mosaic, rather than being bypassed altogether...By providing normative legitimacy, convening authority and cross-institutional coordination, the UN can transform what is currently a fragmented patchwork into a more coherent governance ecosystem. ....The UN’s difficulties are not only about great power politics but also about institutional design. A state-centric body cannot on its own govern transnational processes. But in a lattice of overlapping institutions, the UN can still play a useful role. More than 190 states have invested in it. To discard it now would be to squander eight decades of political capital. The challenge, instead, is to reform the UN, to align it with the realities of a multipolar world, and to embed it in the wider governance mosaic that already operationalises collective security and cooperation.



Popular posts from this blog

THE AGE OF 'ADMINISTRATIVE' POWER.

Image
Warwick Powell explains  how the administrative state has taken over in Europe... 'Regulatory authorities now determine which organisations qualify as legitimate civil society actors, which media outlets are “trusted,” which research bodies are acceptable partners and which narratives are “foreign-influenced.” These classifications carry decisive material consequences - access to funding, platforms and institutional recognition - yet are framed as neutral, technical assessments... Regulatory authorities now determine which organisations qualify as legitimate civil society actors, which media outlets are “trusted,” which research bodies are acceptable partners and which narratives are “foreign-influenced.” These classifications carry decisive material consequences - access to funding, platforms and institutional recognition - yet are framed as neutral, technical assessments.... In countries such as Georgia and Moldova, the EU has increasingly positioned itself not merely as an obser...
Read more

CHINA....AND WESTERN 'LIBERAL ORIENTALISM'.

Image
  Warwick Powell argues that when we in the west look at China we do so in a patronising way he calls 'Liberal Orientalism'. In doing so we dismiss the Cultural Revolution as an aberration rather than a crucial break with the past. He contrasts China with India - the so-called 'worlds largest democracy' where the form of Government was inherited from British Colonialism and is chaotic. This raises the whole idea of governance. If the aim is effective government, India simply doesn't compare to China.  And so is western democracy the ONLY way in which good governance can be achieved? It clearly is not - especially in the days of mass propaganda dominated by wealth and associated corruption. What the festishisation of western democracy does is place 'democracy' above effective government. People are increasingly irritated by the so-called deomocratic process because it frequently fails to address their needs. 'Liberal Orientalism  differs from classical Or...
Read more