Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today, we're tackling,
well, a true giant of a topic, one of these massive,
sprawling subjects that we try to make sense
of. We're talking about the United Nations. It
really is the foundational effort of modern international
governance. You have this organization that's
tasked with, I mean, nothing less than keeping
global peace. Right. Global peace. security,
human rights. And it has to do that across 193
member states. So for most people, it's just
this vast, complex thing that's kind of operating
in the shadows. Yeah. And it's hard to get a
clear view. Is it this brilliant success story
or is it just this inevitable bureaucracy that's
always on the verge of paralysis? So that's really
the heart of our mission for this deep dive.
We're going to unpack that origin story. We'll
dissect the inner machinery of it all. Because
the names of the different organs really do matter.
They really do. And then we have to critically
assess where it succeeded, where it has failed,
sometimes catastrophically, and crucially, the
immediate existential challenges it's facing
right now. And when we talk about that mission,
we're really talking about the UN Charter. It
was signed back on June 26, 1945, and it came
into force that October. And the mission statement
itself is just so comprehensive. Oh, it is. It's
maintaining international peace and security,
developing friendly relations, promoting cooperation
on global problems. And sort of being the center
for harmonizing what all these different countries
are doing. Exactly. And the scale is just, it's
immense. You said it, 193. member states. That's
basically every sovereign state on Earth. Plus
two observer states, the Holy See and Palestine,
who, you know, they participate in the global
conversation. Right. And what's fascinating to
me is the physical presence. The headquarters
is in New York City, but it's in this international
zone. Which is such a key detail. That little
patch of land is technically international territory,
which is absolutely essential for diplomatic
neutrality. But it's not all in New York. The
organization is really decentralized. It is,
yeah. You've got major offices in Geneva, Nairobi,
Vienna, and The Hague. That's where the World
Court is, right? The International Court of Justice.
It's the only main organ not in New York. That's
the one. And, you know, for anyone who works
in this field, it's worth noting the six official
languages. Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian. And those languages, I mean, they're
a direct reflection of the organization's original
power structure and its global reach. You mentioned
neutrality. And that's guarded by a really crucial
diplomatic tool. It is. The U .N. and all its
agencies, they're granted immunity from the laws
of the host countries where they operate. It's
all based on this convention on privileges and
immunities. Without it, they couldn't operate
freely in politically sensitive areas. They just
risk local interference constantly. So our goal
today. is to give you clarity on this entire
system. We're going to trace it all the way back
to the failure of its predecessor. The League
of Nations. Exactly. Then walk through the power
mechanics of the Security Council versus the
General Assembly, highlight its monumental life
-saving achievements. And there are many. But
then we have to zero in on the really scathing
criticisms and this profound financial crisis
that, I mean, it threatens its very survival
today. Let's do it. OK, so let's unpack this
journey because the U .N. didn't just appear
out of nowhere. It was, like you said, built
from the ashes of a colossal failure. The League
of Nations. That is the critical starting point.
The League was, you know, the first. serious,
large scale attempt at a global body for collective
security. And this is right after World War One.
Exactly. Formerly set up on January 10th, 1920.
And it was championed really passionately by
U .S. President Woodrow Wilson. He saw it as
the ultimate way to prevent another world war.
But the deep irony, of course, is that the U
.S. never even joined. Never joined. The U .S.
Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.
So the very country that helped create it was
never a member. And that, combined with its other
weaknesses, just created these fatal flaws that
became so obvious in the 1930s. Right, when the
world needed it most. Yeah. Absolutely. The League
just lacked any real enforcement power. It relied
completely on... voluntary collective security
and moral persuasion. Which doesn't work so well
against aggressive totalitarian states. Proved
totally useless. I mean, take the 1933 Japanese
invasion of Manchuria. The League did what it
could do procedurally. 40 nations voted for Japan
to withdraw. And Japan's response? Their response
was to just veto the action and walk out of the
League. That was it. The organization had no
way to compel them to do anything. And the failure
with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia was, I mean,
arguably even more humiliating. It was devastating.
This was 1936. Italy, under Mussolini, invades
Ethiopia. And Emperor Haile Selassie personally
travels to Geneva. He appeals to the League for
help. And he gave that famous speech. That famous
speech where he told the delegates, it is us
today, it will be you tomorrow, and the League.
They passed some minor ineffective sanctions.
But didn't enforce them. They didn't enforce
them seriously. They were afraid of a wider war.
So Italy, sensing that, just walked out of the
League, too. So by 1939, when World War II breaks
out, the League is effectively dead. And the
architects of the UN, they knew that this new
organization, it had to have real teeth. It couldn't
just rely on goodwill. And they started planning
fast, even before the U .S. was officially in
World War II. Early concepts pop up in 1941.
Right. The Declaration of St. James's Palace,
the Atlantic Charter. Yes, with Roosevelt and
Churchill. These documents were setting the moral
goals for the post -war world. You know, free
trade, self -determination, a better security
system. And here's a fun detail. The actual name,
United Nations, was coined by Franklin Roosevelt.
It was. He used it to describe the allied countries
fighting the Axis. Churchill accepted it, but
he pointed out that Lord Byron had actually used
the term in poetry centuries earlier. That's
fascinating. And that name, it quickly became
a political concept centered on the big four.
The US, the UK, the Soviet Union, and China.
They were going to be the central pillars of
this new system. And they formalized that with
the Declaration by United Nations in January
1942. And that set a condition for joining, right?
It did. To join the alliance, you had to sign
this declaration and declare war on the Axis.
It was a wartime coalition, first and foremost.
So they were building the structure of the post
-war world during the war. The great powers were
already divvying up their future roles. Exactly
right. The formal structuring happened over a
few key conferences. First was the Moscow Conference
in 43. That was the first public announcement
that a new organization would replace the League.
And then Dumbarton Oaks. Dumbarton Oaks in 1944.
That's where the big four basically mapped out
the whole thing. They agreed on the structure,
the function, the Security Council, the General
Assembly. Which all culminated in the big conference
in San Francisco in April 1945. Yeah, the UN
Conference on International Organization. You
had representatives from 50 nations show up.
And this was complex. Because the big four had
the blueprint, but they needed everyone else
to buy in. They needed buy in from all the smaller
nations. So that's where the U .N. charter was
drafted and finally signed on June 26, 1945.
And Poland was added later, bringing the original
total to 51 founding members. The U .N. officially
came into existence on October 24, 1945. Once
the charter was ratified by the five permanent
members, and a majority of the other nations.
And they didn't ease into it. They hit the ground
running. They had to. The first General Assembly
and Security Council meetings were in London
in January 1946. And right away, they're tackling
these incredibly tense pre -Cold War issues.
Like Russian troops in Iran and British forces
in Greece. Exactly. The very first moments of
the UN were spent trying to mediate the exact
conflicts it was designed to prevent. Okay, so
now we get to the structure. This is where the
complexity starts, but it's also... where you
can see the political reality of the world order
just baked right into the system. It's a huge,
sprawling system. The Charter established five
main active organs. You've got the General Assembly,
the Security Council, ECOSUS, the ICJ, and the
Secretariat. Plus the Trusteeship Council, which
is now inactive. Right. It did its job on decolonization
and suspended operations in 1994. So let's start
with the first one, the most democratic -sounding
one. The General Assembly, the GA. You can think
of it as the global town hall. It's the main
deliberative body. All 193 member states are
in it. And here's the key democratic idea. Each
state gets one vote. One single vote. So on paper,
a tiny island nation has the same voting power
as the United States. On paper, yes. It's pure
democracy in that sense. On paper, yes. It's
pure democracy in that sense. But... How powerful
are those votes, really, if they're just recommendations?
And that's the absolute crux of the GA's power
dilemma. Now, decisions on really big questions,
peace and security, new members, and most critically,
the budget, those require a two -thirds majority.
And this is the vital caveat. Outside of its
own budget and internal operations, the resolutions
passed by the General Assembly are non -binding.
They are recommendations. So they represent the
moral weight of the world, but they don't carry
any legal obligation. Precisely. They represent
a global consensus. So if they aren't, legally
binding, why do the great powers still care so
much about what happens in the G .A.? Because
of that moral weight and the legitimacy it confers,
a resolution that passes with, you know, 180
votes that sends a powerful signal. It forces
powerful states to explain themselves on the
world stage. And you mentioned the budget. The
G .A. holds the purse strings. The ultimate power.
That's right. OK, so. How does the actual work
get done in this massive body? It can't just
be 193 countries shouting in a room. No, it's
all done through a very specific committee structure.
Draft resolutions get sent through one of six
main committees. For example? Well, the first
committee deals with disarmament and international
security. The fourth committee is on decolonization.
The sixth handles legal matters. You said the
real institutional power is in the budget. Yes.
So you have to look at the fifth committee. administrative
and budgetary issues. This is where the power
dynamic really shifts. Because while the GA's
political resolutions might be non -binding,
the decisions made by the Fifth Committee on
the budget, on the staffing, on how much each
country pays, those are absolutely binding on
all member states. Ah, so the smaller and developing
nations who have a majority in the GA can use
the budget to exert real control. That's exactly
it. They can control the UN's physical capacity
and its priorities through the administrative
minutia. Okay, so if the General Assembly is
the town hall, we have to talk about the enforcement
room, the body with the actual teeth, the Security
Council. This is a completely different animal.
It reflects the military power of 1945, not the
demographics of today. The Security Council is
the UN's enforcer. The only body that can make
legally binding decisions. The only one. Its
resolutions on international peace and security
are legally binding on all member states. That's
under Article 25 of the Charter. And that mandatory
power is what separates the UN from the old League
of Nations. And its composition is just the clearest
possible snapshot of who won World War II. It
is. It has 15 members. Five of them are the permanent
members, the P5. China, France, Russia, the UK,
and the United States. And they hold the famous
veto power, meaning... Any single one of them
can block any substantive resolution no matter
what the other 14 members want. And that veto
is the single most criticized part of the entire
structure. How can the U .N. claim to promote
stability when five nations can just unilaterally
block action on, say, a humanitarian crisis?
This is where you have to switch from thinking
about idealism to thinking about real politic.
The veto isn't designed to be democratic. It's
designed to ensure the U .N.'s survival. How
does it do that? The people who wrote the charter,
they remembered the league collapsing when major
powers just walked out. They knew this new system
had to keep all the great powers inside the tent.
The veto is the price of their participation.
It's the guarantee that says we will allow the
U .N. to function, but never against our own
vital national interests. So it prevents the
U .N. from becoming a tool of one power block
against another. But the cost is often paralysis.
That is the tradeoff. Exactly. What about the
other 10 members? The other 10 are non -permanent
members. They serve two year terms and they're
elected by the General Assembly on a regional
basis to provide, you know, some geographic representation.
But their influence is always limited by that
veto threat. Always. OK, moving from the decision
makers to the organizational backbone. Let's
talk about the engine room. The Secretariat.
The Secretariat is the civil service of the UN.
It does all the essential day -to -day work needed
to run this massive global system. Tens of thousands
of international staff. The people organizing
conferences, translating documents, writing reports
from the field. All of that. And the global face
of this entire system is the Secretary General,
the SG. Currently, Antonio Guterres. And what
defines that role today? Is it just being the
chief administrator? Well, the charter defines
the SG as the chief administrative officer, but
the job has evolved dramatically. It's really
a dual role now. Administrator, yes, but also
a top tier diplomat and mediator in international
disputes. And that comes from Article 99 of the
charter, right? Yeah. The part that lets the
SG bring threats to the Security Council's attention.
That's the source of their independent political
power. But it's an incredibly precarious position
to be in. We've seen some historical examples
of that pressure. We have. Trygve Lie of Norway,
the very first SG, was essentially forced out.
The Soviet Union just refused to acknowledge
him anymore because he supported the U .N. action
in the Korean War. The Cold War pressure was
just too much. But on the other hand, you have
figures who dramatically expanded the role. Oh,
yes. Dag Hammarskjöld of Sweden, who served from
1953 until he tragically died in a plane crash
in 1961. He is the one who is often seen as defining
the modern proactive secretary general. The secular
monk. Yes. He pursued this quiet, intense diplomacy,
especially during the Suez Crisis and the Congo
Crisis. He was willing to personally insert himself
into these disputes, and that elevated the role
from just administration to high -stakes mediation.
Okay, from the administrative to the judicial.
Let's go to The Hague and talk about the International
Court of Justice, the World Court. The ICJ. It's
the U .N.'s principal judicial organ. And as
you said, it's the only one of the six main organs
that's not in New York. It's in the Peace Palace
in The Hague. And what kind of cases does it
hear? What's its jurisdiction? Its main job is
to adjudicate disputes between nations, not individuals,
not corporations. This can be anything from border
disputes and treaty interpretations to allegations
of state sponsored war crimes or genocide. And
are its rulings binding? They are, but, and it's
a big but, only on the parties that have specifically
agreed to accept the court's jurisdiction on
that particular case. The court is made up of
15 judges from different nations. Okay, we've
covered the political, administrative, and judicial
branches. Now we have to look at this immense
network that deals with global economic and social
issues. And that starts with ECOSOC. The Economic
and Social Council, yes. This is the UN's largest
and... probably most complex body. Its job is
to promote international economic and social
cooperation. Think of it as the central nervous
system for all the UN's development work. It
gathers data, it makes recommendations, and critically,
it coordinates all those other agencies. It coordinates
that vast alphabet soup of global organizations.
Let's try to clarify that alphabet soup because
it's confusing. There's a difference between
the independent specialized agencies and the
UN's own funds and programs. This is a really
crucial distinction to understand how the UN
actually works and spends money. ECOSOX is like
the traffic controller. The specialized agencies
like the World Bank, the IMF, the World Health
Organization, the WHO, they are autonomous. So
they existed separately. Many of them did, yes.
They were set up by separate treaties. They have
their own budgets, their own rules. But they
agreed to coordinate their work with the UN through
ECOSOC. And the funds and programs. Those are
different. They were created by and are governed
by the General Assembly. So you're talking about
the UNDP, the Development Program, UNICEF, the
Children's Fund, the WFP, the World Food Program.
UNHCR for refugees. And they are directly accountable
to the GA. Yes, but here's the critical part.
They're funded almost entirely by voluntary contributions
from member states, not the main UN budget. Which
makes them incredibly vital for humanitarian
work, but also really vulnerable to political
pressure and funding shortfalls. Extremely vulnerable.
It must be a huge challenge to staff this entire
global system to make sure you're getting top
talent from everywhere without just hiring from
the richest countries. That's managed by a governance
mechanism called the Nobel Mayor Principle. All
the UN system organizations follow it. And what's
the goal of that principle? The goal is equal
pay for work of equal value, no matter your nationality.
It's essential for creating a truly international
civil service. So how does it actually work for
setting salaries? The principle basically says
that salaries have to be competitive enough to
attract and retain citizens from the countries
where civil service pay is highest. Historically,
that's been the United States federal civil service.
So it ensures a professional workforce. But I
can see how critics would point to that as creating
a kind of isolated, well -paid international
elite. That is one of the complex implications.
Yes. OK, let's move on to what the U .N. actually
does. The core work. We can break it down into
three big areas. Peace. rights and development.
Let's start with peacekeeping. The blue helmets.
Peacekeeping is one of the UN's most visible
and most controversial security tools. It's important
to remember the UN does not have a standing army.
These forces are voluntary contributions, troops,
police, military observers that member states
offer up, and they're deployed by the Security
Council to enforce peace agreements or protect
civilians in post -conflict zones. There's a
Rand Corporation study that said UN peacekeeping
is successful in two -thirds of its efforts,
which sounds good. But how do we square that
with the catastrophic failures, like in Rwanda,
that led to worldwide ridicule? That's the central
paradox of peacekeeping. The massive failures
are often political failures of the Security
Council, a failure to grant the right mandate
or provide the resources or just a lack of political
will for the troops to actually intervene. So
where the mandate is clear and the resources
are there, it tends to work. The study suggests
that, yes, U .N.-led nation building efforts
generally result in a more durable peace than
when a single country goes in alone. What makes
it different? What makes it more effective in
those cases? It comes down to legitimacy and
soft power. A Georgetown professor, Lise Howard,
she notes that the UN's approach is fundamentally
non -offensive. The blue helmets are there to
deter, not to wage war. So they're using things
other than force. Mostly, yes. Verbal persuasion,
financial inducements, and coercion short of
offensive military force. And because the forces
are multinational, mandated by this global body,
they just carry a higher degree of international
legitimacy. It's easier for them to gain the
trust of local factions. And beyond putting boots
on the ground, the UN is also a huge player in
preventing conflict through arms limitation treaties.
Oh, an indispensable player. That was written
into the charter from day one. And then when
nuclear weapons were developed just weeks later,
it became an overwhelming priority. The very
first resolution of the first General Assembly
called for eliminating atomic weapons. What are
some of the biggest treaty milestones that just
wouldn't have happened without the U .N. providing
that forum? Well, the entire global nuclear architecture,
really. The Treaty on the Non -Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, the MPT, is the big one.
Then you have the Biological Weapons Convention,
the Chemical Weapons Convention, the treaty banning
landmines. And U .N. associated bodies like the
IAEA? Oversee all of this? Yes, the IAEA, the
OPCW, they oversee the practical application
of these incredibly complex agreements. Okay,
let's shift to human rights. This feels like
the more foundation of the whole post -war mission.
It is. And the cornerstone document is the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the UDHR, adopted
in 1948. It was drafted by a committee chaired
by Eleanor Roosevelt. Now, it's important to
understand the hierarchy here. The UDHR itself
isn't legally binding, is it? No, it's not. It's
a common standard of achievement. It's a philosophical
blueprint. But that philosophy was then turned
into actual binding law. Correct. The UDHR is
the foundation for two legally binding treaties
or covenants, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These
are what turn the moral principles into legal
obligations for the states that ratify them.
And that mandate has kept evolving over time.
reflecting how global awareness changes. Absolutely.
We've seen key conventions targeting specific
groups. CEDAW in 1979, the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child
in 1989. And more recently? More recently, in
2011, the General Assembly passed a landmark
resolution recognizing the rights of members
of the LGBTQ plus community. So the UN is constantly
trying to push the boundaries of what counts
as a globally accepted human right. Moving to...
economic development and crisis response. This
is often the most visible work the UN does on
the ground, literally saving lives. And the operational
scale here is just staggering. The UN sets these
global benchmarks for progress. They started
with the Millennium Development Goals, the MDGs,
from 2000 to 2015. And now we have the Sustainable
Development Goals, the SDGs. Exactly. The SDGs
are much broader. They cover poverty, education,
climate action, equality. It's a huge agenda.
And in terms of specific diseases, they have
a track record that proves international cooperation
can work. It really can. I mean, the WHO announced
the global eradication of smallpox in 1980. That
is arguably the single greatest public health
achievement in human history. And they've worked
on polio, leprosy. And UNAIDS coordinates the
global response to the HIV AIDS epidemic. The
UN Population Fund is the largest source of funding
for reproductive health and family planning in
the world. And when a conflict or a natural disaster
hits, the UN's humanitarian logistics capacity
is just unmatched. The intensity is hard to overstate.
Just take the World Food Program, the WFP. They
feed, on average, 90 million people a year in
80 countries. That requires these massive, complex
logistical chains that often have to operate
in war zones. And at the same time, the UNHCR
is protecting refugees globally. Providing aid
and legal frameworks for millions of people who
have lost everything. And finally, we've seen
the UN push new issues onto the global agenda,
like the environment and technology. That focus
really took hold with the UN Environmental Program,
UNP, back in 1972. And a key outcome of that
was the establishment of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, in 1988. And
the IPCC is crucial because it doesn't make policy
itself. No, it synthesizes and assesses the science.
It creates this unified consensus -based voice
on climate change that governments all over the
world rely on. And now a very modern focus is
emerging in the digital space, looking at things
like AI governance. Yes. The UN has started organizing
an annual open source week. It's an attempt to
foster collaboration on everything from tech
projects to creating global policies for artificial
intelligence before the tech just completely
outpaces regulation. Okay. Here's where we have
to balance the ledger, because for every success
story, every life saved by the WFP, there is
a litany of intense criticism and historical
failure. And this takes us right to the existential
challenges the U .N. faces. The organization
was I mean, it was essentially paralyzed for
its first 40 years by the Cold War. The U .S.
and the Soviets just vetoed each other constantly.
But even after the Cold War ended. The UN faced
these defining crises that showed its limits
when the P5 just couldn't agree to act. And we
have spent some time on these mission failures
because they define so much the criticism today.
They absolutely do. The UN mission in Somalia,
for instance. It ended in what was widely seen
as a failure, especially after the U .S. pulled
out after the Battle of Mogadishu in 93. And
the mission in Bosnia faced worldwide ridicule.
Complete ridicule. The UN declared these safe
zones, but it had no capacity and no authorization
to actually defend them. So you had horrific
events like the Srebrenica massacre happening
right under the UN's nose. But the most enduring
stain on the UN's moral authority has to be the
failure to intervene in the 1994 Rwandan. genocide.
That is the ultimate tragic example of paralysis
by the Security Council. The commander of the
U .N. mission there, General Romeo Dallaire,
he repeatedly sent cables to New York. He was
begging for permission and reinforcements to
seize arms caches and stop the violence he knew
was coming. And the Security Council just refused.
They refused. They lacked the political consensus.
They were unwilling to authorize a robust mandate.
And the result was the slaughter of up to a million
people in 100 days. It proved that the UN's protective
power is only as strong as the political will
of the P5. And these failures, they feed directly
into the deep -seated structural critiques. And
the biggest one is that veto power. Critics argue
correctly that the veto is just fundamentally
undemocratic. Even former President Obama noted
that divisions in the Security Council continue
to hamstring the U .N.'s ability to act. It allows
national interest to just trump collective security
every time. And that fuels a broader geopolitical
divide, what people call the North -South split.
Which is really a philosophical conflict. It's
the richer northern nations, the G7 bloc, versus
the developing southern nations organized in
the group of 77, which is now 133 countries.
And the G77 wants a more empowered General Assembly.
They do. They argue that if the GA represents
the world's population one nation, one vote.
Why should the Security Council, which represents
historical power, hold all the legally binding
authority? While the North wants to keep the
UN's role limited to just transnational threats
like terrorism, things they can't handle alone.
That's the core tension. The South wants democratization.
The North defends the existing power structure.
We also see critiques about exclusion and bias.
The exclusion of Taiwan is a longstanding issue.
It is. It goes back to a 1971 General Assembly
resolution that recognized the People's Republic
of China, the PRC over the Republic of China,
Taiwan, as the only legitimate representatives
of China. And that resolution still blocks Taiwan's
inclusion in agencies like the WHO. It does.
Critics say this hurts global health, which became
really obvious during the pandemic. But the political
pressure from the PRC ensures that support for
Taiwan's inclusion is always blocked. And on
the topic of bias, there is constant, highly
charged criticism about the UN's focus on the
Middle East. This is a very sensitive issue.
Critics, especially pro -Israeli groups and some
diplomats, allege a pro -Palestinian bias, particularly
in bodies like the UN Human Rights Council. Which
has singled out Israel far more than other countries.
Yes. And that critique is often used by politicians,
particularly in the U .S., to question the organization's
overall impartiality. And beyond bias, there
are these fundamental arguments about whether
the UN is a threat to national sovereignty. This
has been a recurring theme in conservative politics
in the U .S. since the very beginning. The argument
is that these multilateral agreements on things
like the environment or human rights, they erode
a nation's ability to govern itself. And it's
not just talk. We see actual legislation being
introduced. All the time. The American Sovereignty
Restoration Act, which would pull the US out
of the UN entirely, has been introduced in Congress
multiple times as recently as 2022. And it's
trickled down to the state level. It has. In
2023, Tennessee passed a law that explicitly
blocks the implementation of any programs originating
in or traceable to the United Nations, specifically
citing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
So these external challenges are then compounded
by systemic internal problems. Inefficiency,
mismanagement. Bureaucratic waste has been a
consistent complaint from the major donor countries.
And in response, they've created internal watchdogs
like the Office of Internal Oversight Services,
OIOS. But those are created because of pressure,
right? Yes. The U .S. Congress repeatedly withheld
its dues in the 1990s, specifically to force
the U .N. to reform itself internally. And we
can't talk about internal failure without mentioning
the massive corruption scandal of the oil for
food program. That was a devastating blow to
the U .N.'s reputation. The program was supposed
to let Iraq, which was under sanctions, sell
oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies. It
found widespread systemic fraud, billions of
dollars in kickbacks. UN officials, diplomats,
contractors were all implicated. It raised really
serious questions about the integrity of the
whole organization. And the Blue Helmets, who
are supposed to represent the UN's moral authority,
have themselves been implicated in horrific misconduct.
Tragically, yes. Peacekeepers have faced widespread
accusations of sexual exploitation and abuse,
even child rape in missions in the Congo, Liberia,
Sudan. And there was the cholera outbreak in
Haiti. A devastating public health failure. Scientists
traced the 2010s Haiti cholera outbreak, which
killed over 8 ,000 people, back to UN peacekeepers
from Nepal. So on top of all the structural flaws,
the political paralysis, the internal scandals,
the UN is now facing a severe, acute financial
crisis. This is an immediate and critical threat.
The situation has gotten really severe since
2020. The U .N. is facing a liquidity crisis
because member states are delaying or just refusing
to pay their assessed contributions. And who
are the main players in this? Well, the United
States is the single largest contributor. It's
assessed at 22 percent of the regular budget
and about 27 percent of peacekeeping costs. But
a U .S. law from 1994 limits the country to paying
no more than 25 percent for peacekeeping. Which
creates an automatic shortfall. But more strategically,
both US and China, who is the second largest
contributor, they often delay their payments
as a direct political tactic. You're saying they're
using the money they owe as leverage? That's
the assessment from diplomats. They leverage
payment delays to influence the U .N. on major
political issues. China on the persecution of
the Uyghurs or the U .S. on the U .N.'s stance
on the Gaza war. It's a tool of obstruction.
And the stakes are incredibly high right now.
What's the real impact of this shortfall? The
impact is measured in human lives. As of May
2025, only 60 one countries had paid their dues
in full. The shortfall is forcing massive budget
cuts. And the UN has warned that millions of
lives that rely on programs like the World Food
Program are being put at risk. Because the political
maneuvering of a few powerful states is undermining
the entire humanitarian mandate. It fundamentally
does. And yet, despite this staggering list of
failures and criticisms, the organization's achievements
can't be ignored. Absolutely not. I mean, the
U .N. and its agencies have been recognized with
numerous Nobel Peace Prizes, which confirms the
tangible positive impact they've had. Dag Harris
Gold and Kofi Annan both received the prize,
and the U .N. as a whole shared it with Annan
in 2001. Right. And individual negotiators like
Ralph Bunch and Lester B. Pearson for organizing
the very first peacekeeping force during the
Suez crisis. And the humanitarian agencies themselves
have a huge honors role. They do. UNICEF for
its work with children, the UNHCR, which has
won twice for refugee protection, the IAEA for
nuclear safeguards, and the World Food Program
for fighting hunger. They've all been awarded
the Nobel Peace Prize. So what does this all
mean? When we look back over these first eight
decades, how do we sum up this complex, contradictory
legacy? The historian Paul Kennedy concluded
that while the organization has had some major
setbacks, when all its aspects are considered,
the UN has brought great benefits to our generation
and will bring benefits to our children's and
grandchildren's generations as well. And that
quote from President Eisenhower in 1953, it sort
of puts the dichotomy perfectly. He acknowledged
all the flaws, but said that the United Nations
represents man's best organized hope to substitute
the conference table for the battlefield. And
the author Stanley Meisler, I think he summarized
it perfectly. He said the UN never fulfilled
the maximalist, idealistic hopes of its founders,
but it accomplished a great deal nonetheless.
It's this necessary, flawed institution that
acts as the world's safety valve and conscience.
Which brings us to our final thought for you,
the listener, to mull over. Considering the current
financial crisis, driven by powerful member states
withholding their dues for political leverage,
and these deep debates over sovereignty versus
global governance, what immediate non -structural
change could the UN implement to insulate its
most critical, life -saving humanitarian operations,
like the World Food Program and UNICEF, from
the political paralysis and the funding demands
of the Security Council's permanent members?
Is there a governance or financial mechanism
that could allow saving lives to become truly
apolitical? Welcome to The Debate. Today we are
wrestling with the enduring paradox of the United
Nations. It was established back in 1945 with
this foundational belief that collective action
could prevent another global catastrophe. And
its primary mandate, right there on the charter,
is the maintenance of international peace and
security. But its legacy is, well, it's profoundly
contradictory. You have these amazing successes
in social progress and humanitarian work right
alongside, you know, trenchant criticisms of
ineffectiveness and political bias in its security
role. It really is the ultimate global organization,
isn't it? I mean, with 193 member states and
that tension you're talking about between the
aspiration and the political reality. That's
precisely what defines its effectiveness, or
in many cases, its lack thereof. And I come at
it from a different perspective. I'll be arguing
that the organization's true lasting impact is
actually found in its secondary goals, social
and economic cooperation. We have to assess the
UN on the tangible, systemic improvements it
delivers across the globe, achievements that
are often secured in spite of the political gridlock
that paralyzes its main security function. So
for me, the premise of the UN Charter is just
non -negotiable. It's collective security. The
system was explicitly designed so that if a nation
commits aggression, the international community,
led by the Security Council, acts decisively.
Now, if that system can't prevent the mass slaughter
of civilians or stop one nation from invading
another, then the resulting humanitarian suffering,
it just negates any of the good works that come
after. The material shows how the system was
almost immediately, while hobbled, during the
Cold War, that division between the US and the
USSR often paralyzed the organization, allowing
it to intervene only in conflicts distant from
the Cold War. And the veto power, held by the
five permanent members, it's a core feature,
but one that's often described as fundamentally
undemocratic, and crucially, a main cause of
inaction on genocides and crimes against humanity.
When you look at the historical record, the failures
are just, they're catastrophic. The organization
was paralyzed during the Bangladeshi genocide
in 1971, the Cambodian genocide in the 70s, and
of course, most notoriously, the Rwandan genocide
in 1994. These aren't, you know, minor policy
failures. They represent a complete breakdown
of the UN's core function. If the UN can't prevent
the worst horrors imaginable, its other important
work just becomes a very expensive attempt to
mitigate the consequences of its own political
impotence. I absolutely acknowledge that the
Security Council is severely constrained. It's
constrained by the political interests of its
member states, especially, of course, those with
the veto. That's an inherent structural limitation,
maybe even an intended feature, of a body that
requires a participation of the great powers
to even exist. But judging the UN solely on its
constrained political wing, well, it ignores
the operational reality of the system for the
last, what, 70 years? There was a real functional
shift in focus and resources. By the 1970s, the
budget for social and economic development was
already far greater than its peacekeeping budget.
That right there demonstrates where the most
consistent effort and cooperation have been directed.
And the UN system has been repeatedly recognized
as a leader in human development. This isn't
just theory. It's evidenced by Nobel Peace Prizes
given specifically to its agencies like UNICEF
in 1965 or the International Labor Organization,
the ILO, in 1969. But more importantly, just
consider the concrete outcomes. The eradication
of smallpox by the World Health Organization
in 1980. That's arguably one of the greatest
public health achievements in human history.
The Millennium and Sustainable Development Goals,
the MDGs and SDGs, have completely shifted the
global conversation on poverty and health. And
when conflict does happen, you have organizations
like the World Food Program feeding on average
90 million people in 80 nations every single
year. These are life -saving systemic successes.
on a massive scale. That, I argue, is where you
find its true effectiveness. That is a powerful
list of achievements. And look, no one disputes
the life -saving work of the WFP or the WHO.
But the scale of that development aid, however
vast, it can't fundamentally excuse the failures
of the Security Council. Those failures directly
lead to the need for the humanitarian response.
The two are inextricably linked. If you eliminate
the primary cause of suffering, which is conflict,
that secondary aid becomes far less necessary.
The material points to instances where the security
mandate wasn't just inactive, it was actively
tested and found wanting. I mean, take the mission
in Bosnia. The UN faced worldwide ridicule for
its indecisive, confused mission in the face
of ethnic cleansing, specifically the failure
to protect designated safe areas. Or more recently,
during this reliant of civil war in 2009, an
internal review concluded the organization suffered
a systemic failure. These are failures of the
highest moral and operational order. The inability
to prevent aggression creates the very humanitarian
catastrophes, mass starvation, refugee crises.
that the development agencies then have to frantically
try to mitigate. I find it very difficult to
call the UN effective when it fails at prevention,
thereby ensuring the need for these incredibly
expensive and dangerous mitigation efforts. Right.
I understand the moral argument that prevention
is better than a cure. But we're arguing about
how to define success in what is, by design,
a structurally flawed organization. You're defining
success purely by prevention, which is a metric
that requires full consensus among five great
powers who are often fundamentally opposed. I'm
defining it by tangible, measured achievement
and mitigation, which the U .N. manages to do
continuously. And, you know, the narrative of
universal political impotence is maybe a bit
too simplistic. The data complicates that. A
RAND Corporation study in 2005 actually found
the U .N. was successful in two thirds of its
peacekeeping efforts. And political scientists
later determined that U .N. operations are demonstrably
more effective at reducing civilian casualties
than counterterrorism operations by nation states.
So even in that incredibly difficult domain of
security, the U .N. prevents bloodshed more effectively
than many alternatives. But let's go back to
the sheer scale. The UN apparatus that's dedicated
to human welfare, from the UNDP publishing the
Human Development Index to UNFPA funding reproductive
health, it operates on a continuous loop of global
improvement. This continuous, profound impact
is the UN's most steady success. And it's achieved
because these agencies are often designed to
function outside the political machinery of the
council. OK, but that brings us to a really fundamental
tension then. If the development apparatus works
so well because it's separate from the Security
Council. Doesn't that fundamentally argue for
a complete divorce? Because the structural problems
in the council are not only impeding peace, they're
now actively threatening the financial stability
of the very humanitarian agencies you're championing.
I'm talking specifically about the system's new
vulnerability. The material discusses this 2025
financial crisis, which is caused by member states
delaying their payments. Major contributors like
the US and China They delay their payments in
order to influence the UN on topics such as the
Gaza War and persecution of Uyghurs in China.
This proves that political interests are consistently
paralyzing administrative effectiveness and critically
risking putting millions of lives at risk. Your
whole argument hinges on the effectiveness of
these agencies, but their funding, their very
lifeblood, is perpetually a political hostage
to great power dysfunction. How can we call that
branch effective when its operation is constantly
being leveraged? That is a sharp point, and the
financial vulnerability of the system is undeniable.
It really highlights that no international organization
is immune from the political whims of its most
powerful members. But consider the alternative.
The UN was created to replace the failed League
of Nations, a body that collapsed because great
powers just refused to participate. The U .S.
never joined, and the League was useless against
Japan or Italy. However flawed, and yes, the
veto is the primary flaw, it at least ensures
communication and participation among the great
powers. That's a necessary, if often frustrating,
prerequisite for global stability. President
Eisenhower famously said the UN represents man's
best organized hope to substitute the conference
table for the battlefield. The structure, while
imperfect, provides that mechanism for de -escalation
that the League never had. And beyond that, the
Charter provides a foundation beyond just state
sovereignty. It mandates the promotion of respect
for human rights. Now, the Security Council can't
always enforce this, but the very existence of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a
foundational norm the UN established, it sets
the essential common standard. And that standard
shapes diplomacy, law, and eventually the humanitarian
work you're worried about. That norm -setting
power is a crucial, long -term success that operates
despite all the political wrangling over budgets.
I agree, the norm -setting is vital. But norms
are meaningless without integrity. And we have
to address the severe ethical failures that compromise
the integrity of the operations themselves. These
failures directly undermine the reputation of
the humanitarian work we're trying to assess.
The organization has faced chronic criticism
for mismanagement and corruption, which, you
know, it prompted the U .S. to withdraw UNESCO
funding way back in 1984. But the issue is far
more grave than just inefficiency. Peacekeeping
missions, the very missions meant to stabilize
conflict zones, have been marred by deeply serious
accusations. UN peacekeepers accused of child
rape, of soliciting prostitutes, of widespread
sexual abuse in places like the DRC, Haiti, and
Sudan. And beyond that, scientists actually cited
UN peacekeepers from Nepal as the source of the
2010's Haiti cholera outbreak, which killed thousands
of civilians. When the organization tasked with
saving lives is directly responsible for causing
mass death and perpetuating ethical horrors,
that shifts the failure from a policy limitation
to a profound moral crisis. That level of operational
failure just poisons the trust you need for any
humanitarian work to succeed. And those ethical
and operational disasters, the corruption, the
oil for food program, the horrific misconduct
by peacekeepers, They are absolute steens on
the organization's reputation. They have to be
addressed with the gravest seriousness. I agree.
However, I think we have to view them as failures
of accountability and implementation within specific
missions, rather than as a failure of the entire
system's effectiveness. The UN isn't immune to
reform. These failures are what drive necessary
institutional changes, like the significant management
reforms started by Bouchos Bouchos Ghali and
Kofi Annan. And when we look at the entire system,
the specialized agencies offer a vital counterpoint.
The material notes that these agencies, like
the Food and Agricultural Organization and the
UNHCR, they operate with almost complete independence.
They succeed in their essential functions, promoting
agricultural stability, protecting refugees,
precisely because their effectiveness is measured
by tangible outcomes, by technical expertise.
It insulates them from those political constraints.
This operational independence ensures that the
life -saving work continues, even amidst the
dysfunction of the Security Council. If we judge
the organization on where its success is most
consistent, the balance has to tip toward the
welfare agencies. I see why you emphasize that
independence, I do. But I remain unconvinced.
that the effectiveness of independent parts can
redeem the failures of the whole, especially
when that whole is so clearly defined by its
charter. Conclusion. So, to summarize my position,
the assassinate of the UN has to remain tethered
to its primary mandate, peace and security. When
the organization suffers a systemic failure in
conflict zones, when the veto ensures paralysis
and great powers use funding as political leverage,
The UN is fundamentally unable to address its
most critical charter function. All the other
development gains are just made vulnerable when
the organization cannot prevent mass conflict.
Its effectiveness ultimately is measured by its
ability to prevent the worst outcomes, not just
alleviate them afterwards. Well, I think complexity
like this often requires multiple perspectives
to really appreciate the global impact. And while
the political and ethical failings in the security
apparatus are undeniable, for me, the UN's enduring
legacy, its true measure of effectiveness, is
found in its vast infrastructure for human rights,
economic development, and global health. These
secondary objectives, they now represent the
majority of the system's work. They offer proof
of tangible, sustained global cooperation that
saves millions of lives, often succeeding precisely
where the political organs are designed to fail.
These results are the stable core of the organization's
continuous success. The tension between the UN's
structural political limitations and its societal
achievements remains central to understanding
global governance. It certainly suggests there's
much more to explore in the material about how
international organizations navigate sovereign
interests. Indeed. Thank you for joining us for
The Debate.