By Anadolu Agency
January 6, 2025 12:05 pm
ISTANBUL
With the advent of the next quarter of this century, the UN, long heralded as a beacon for global peacekeeping and mediation, faces mounting criticism for its inability to effectively address raging conflicts, including Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the Russia-Ukraine war.
Recent years have seen a noticeable trend of individual nations stepping into roles traditionally filled by the UN, acting as mediators in conflicts around the world. This shift, according to experts, has not only highlighted the limitations of the UN but also raised questions about the efficacy of its structural framework and leadership strategies.
Several recent examples underscore the growing role countries are playing in conflict resolution. Türkiye has been instrumental in fostering dialogue between Somalia and Ethiopia to address the Somaliland crisis, while back in August 2024, the Turkish National Intelligence Organization (MIT) facilitated the largest prisoner swap operation in recent memory, involving the US, Russia, Germany, Poland, Slovenia, Norway, and Belarus.
Similarly, Gulf nations have emerged as key players, with Saudi Arabia mediating the Sudanese civil war, while the UAE played a pivotal role in a prisoner exchange between Russia and Ukraine.
Even powers such as China have taken up a role in mediation, hosting talks between Palestinian groups Fatah and Hamas last year, following the 2023 negotiations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Structural imbalances hampering the UN
According to Susan Akram, a clinical professor at Boston University School of Law, the UN’s inability to effectively prevent wars and atrocities, such as the Israeli genocide in Gaza, stems from structural imbalances within the organization.
“The division of powers between a small group of states at the Security Council and the majority of states represented in the General Assembly is the result of the post-WWII Allied states’ decision to permanently control UN intervention in the world order,” Akram explained.
At the core of this dysfunction, she added, is the structure of the Security Council, dominated by five veto-wielding nations: the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK. These nations wield disproportionate power, determining when and how the UN can act to maintain global peace.
“This unequal power-sharing is built into the UN Charter and has remained inviolable despite the growing economic, population, and political clout of non-Western states,” Akram said.
“Thus, it is only Russia, China, the US, France and the UK, the veto-holding states … that decide who lives and who dies when armed conflict breaks out.”
For instance, she said, while the UN General Assembly has repeatedly voted for a cease-fire in Gaza, these efforts have been blocked by a single veto, most recently and frequently by the US.
Mark Seddon, director of the Centre for United Nations Studies at the University of Buckingham, echoed these sentiments, emphasizing that the misuse of the veto power by permanent members undermines the UN’s ability to act effectively.
“The real problem is that at least two permanent members of the Security Council, the US and Russia, are using the veto in a way that was never supposed to be used,” Seddon said.
The UN can only ever be as strong as member states allow it to be, he added.
Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group, said the UN’s importance as a global mediator peaked in the early post-Cold War period, when major powers were supportive of greater international cooperation to manage conflicts.
“There is less political space for the UN to take bold initiatives today, given the return of major power competition. When the Security Council is divided, as over Ukraine and Gaza, the UN cannot do much,” he said.
‘Overly cautious’ leadership
Another factor limiting the UN’s efficacy, experts argue, is the perceived caution of its leadership, with current Secretary-General Antonio Guterres criticized for his restrained approach to conflict resolution.
Guterres assumed office during a challenging period, marked by Donald Trump’s first term as US president, which strained international diplomacy.
Seddon said Guterres has faced a lot of criticism from both within and outside the UN, pointing to a letter sent to him in April 2022 by over 200 former senior UN officials who urged him to adopt a more proactive role in addressing conflicts such as the Ukraine war.
While Guterres has condemned the violence in Gaza and visited the Egyptian border with the besieged Palestinian enclave, his response has been “overly cautious,” said Seddon.
“Given the strength of global opinion, particularly with regard to what has been claimed as being acts of genocide and clear acts of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, why isn’t the UN presiding over a militarized aid convoy?” he questioned.
Gowan described Guterres as “fatalistic” about the UN’s limitations, noting that he often defers to regional organizations like the African Union to lead conflict resolution efforts.
“In part, this is a realistic response to the current tensions in the UN, but quite a lot of diplomats and UN officials feel that the secretary-general has become too cautious and could take more risks,” he added.
States gaining ground as global mediators
In the absence of UN intervention, individual countries have increasingly assumed the role of mediators, according to Akram.
Whether filling the gap or deliberately sidelining the UN, individual countries have more and more taken on the role that UN negotiators and mediators should be taking, further politicizing peacemaking to serve their interests, she said.
Anna Jacobs, an expert on Gulf diplomacy, highlighted the region’s growing prominence in mediation.
“Gulf countries have a vast network of relationships with state and non-state actors, with global powers in the West and the East, and considerable political and financial power,” she observed.
She pointed to Qatar’s role in mediating prisoner exchanges between Iran, the US and other European countries, as well as its backchannel diplomacy with Israel and Hamas during the Gaza conflict.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have also extended their mediation efforts beyond the Middle East, including their involvement in Ukraine-related prisoner exchanges and attempts to mediate the war in Afghanistan, Jacobs added.
“The Qataris attempted to mediate in Chad, which did lead to an agreement … The Saudis and the UAE attempted to play a huge role in terms of a roadmap for ending the war in Afghanistan,” she said.
One of the most successful examples of a Gulf country supporting international mediation efforts and helping reach an agreement is Oman, who facilitated contacts between the US and Iran that led to the nuclear agreement under the Obama administration, she added.
“We’re seeing Gulf countries not just mediating in the Middle East and Africa; we’re seeing them mediate globally.”
Seddon cited more examples of states taking up mediation roles, stating that “a lot of effort and work is coming from countries in the Global South – Brazil and South Africa in particular – and also to a degree, China, Malaysia, Indonesia.”
– Call to ‘reinvent’ the UN
The structural challenges and leadership constraints facing the UN have amplified calls for comprehensive reform.
Akram emphasized the need to reevaluate power-sharing within the organization. “It is reasonable to predict that there will be reform of the power-sharing at the UN, but what shape that will take and how soon that will come about remains to be seen,” she said.
“One thing is clear: the five power-wielding countries at the Security Council cannot continue to control the world order, as it has resulted in the massive injustice, repression and genocide that we are witnessing around the world today.”
Proposals for reform often include expanding the Security Council to make it more representative of current global power dynamics, but Akram warned that such changes are fraught with challenges.
“Some proposals for adding more permanent members to the Council could actually make deal-making harder and slower, even if the Council became more representative,” she said.
Akram also emphasized the issue of funding and budgetary allocations: “Aside from peacekeeping, truce supervision and military forces to intervene at various stages of conflict, the UN also must allocate funding for all missions and mechanisms of the UN.
“That includes mediators and commissions. Unfortunately, funding decisions at the UN have also been politicized – for example, the Human Rights Council and all its mechanisms have been underfunded, and thus, hampered in their ability to fully achieve their objectives.”
Seddon also underscored the importance of the UN’s day-to-day functions, which are often overshadowed by its structural issues.
“You couldn’t get rid of the UN; you’d have to reinvent it in some way. But the key problem is the Security Council, whose permanent members reflect a post-WWII settlement,” he argued.
He also highlighted the lack of representation from Africa, Latin America, Oceania, and the Indian subcontinent in the Security Council.
On the obstacles in this process, Seddon pointed out that any serious attempts for reforms “meets with the usual veto because so many of these countries are not looking beyond their own individual self-interest.”
We use cookies on our website to give you a better experience, improve performance, and for analytics. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy By clicking “Accept” you agree to our use of cookies.
Read More