Humanitarian

            Why has the world failed to realize the goals set forth by the founders of the UN?  We have not been able to do away with war, genocide, oppression or poverty because the forces of nationalism, imperialism, capitalism, and statism have repeatedly sabotaged any move made towards libertarianism, egalitarianism, and internationalism. Because the United Nations has been a leading force for equality and human rights in the world during its existence, it has been a prime target for subversion by hierarchical forces.  Plutocratic first world governments have used their power within the UN to push imperialistic policies, and to subvert programs designed to keep peace between nations and protect human rights. The United States’ government in particular has viciously assaulted the UN: by attempting to utilize it in imperialist ventures (notably during the Korean War), by ignoring it entirely and repeatedly vetoing resolutions it found unfavorable, and most recently, by nominating an outspoken critic of the UN and international law, John Bolton, as US ambassador to the UN.[1]

If the United Nations is to remain devoted to the ideals upon which it was founded—human rights, international peace, and equality—it must undergo radical and far reaching democratizing reforms.  If the UN does not undergo significant changes, it risks the fate of other supranational institutions such as the European Union, which might have been a force against imperialism and for human rights, but instead became a tool of American imperialism and neoliberalism. 

Short-term reform

            In the short term, it is absolutely vital that the third world receive more representation in the UN, particularly in the most powerful body of the UN, the Security Council.  Control of the Security Council is crucial because, unlike recommendations to member countries by the General Assembly, decisions made by the Security Council must be accepted by member governments under the UN Charter.  Currently, only five countries hold permanent, veto-wielding seats on the Security Council: the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France. In addition to these five, the General Assembly elects ten members to the Security Council, with each member remaining on the Security Council for two years. However, elected members cannot pass a resolution without the consent or abstention of all five permanent members; a single veto from a permanent member can kill any resolution.

            If the UN is to remain a sovereign defender of human rights and international peace, it is crucial that the Security Council be expanded to better reflect the geopolical realities of the modern world.  This would mean giving permanent seats to Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil (known as the G4), at least two permanent seats to be rotated among the countries of the African Union, and at least two seats to be rotated among the Islamic countries.  In addition, it might prove necessary to revoke the veto rights of all members, which the first world nations have often used to block decisions that were supported by a vast majority of the world’s population.

Long-term democratization

Simply increasingly the size of the Security Council, however, will not be enough to ensure that the UN remains a tenacious defender of human rights.  The only way to do that is to radically transform the UN, to make it completely democratic.  At present, the UN is almost completely unaccountable to the population of the world which it is supposed to serve, and thus, it could potentially become extremely authoritarian.  Because all UN representatives are appointed by national governments and not elected by the citizens of their country, only people living in democratic countries can theoretically have any influence as to who represents them at the UN, and even then, citizens rarely have a say: a recent CNN poll found that three out of every four Americans opposed the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN, but he became ambassador anyway.[2]  People living under dictatorships have absolutely no influence over the UN at all.

Instead of allowing governments to appoint representatives to the United Nations and allowing dictators to help shape international law, representatives should be chosen by direct democratic election in every single member country.  It seems obvious that the people of the world ought to be able to choose their own representative to an institution that is supposed to work for them.  The United Nations is one of the few institutions which the billions of people in the third world could conceivably use to defend themselves against the first world, one that could theoretically represent their interests, but because it is completely undemocratic at this point in time, it is at best an irrelevant bureaucracy and at worst an international tyranny working alongside corporate imperialists.

 A democratic UN would have a single parliamentarian body, and the ratio of representatives allotted to one country as compared to the total number of representatives would be in proportion to the population of that country as compared to the world population.  National governments would have absolutely no power within the UN, and all representatives would be elected democratically.  A just, democratic UN would also allow people of occupied or unrecognized nations such as Palestine, Taiwan, and Western Sahara to elect representatives.

A democratic UN would be far more effective at keeping peace and protecting human rights than an undemocratic UN.  For an example, take the civil war in Sudan.  The UN has not taken significant action against the Sudanese government involved in a genocide which has killed over 200,000 people because Chinese oil companies have been given very profitable contracts under the current Sudanese regime.  Because the authoritarian Chinese government primarily represents the economic interests of its elite, it has blocked several UN attempts to take action against the government of Sudan.  If the Chinese representative to the UN was democratically elected, however, it is extremely unlikely that he or she would support a government involved in genocide.

If there is to be a libertarian and egalitarian future, an international organization such as the United Nations dedicated to preserving international peace and universal human rights must be part of it.  Such an organization would have jurisdiction over issues of global importance such as protecting human rights, keeping peace among nations and within nations, combating medical pandemics, and issuing humanitarian aid.  An organization such as this would not be permitted to use violence or other coercive measures, but would solve disputes through diplomacy and negotiation.

It is clear that if the UN wishes to be anything more than an appendage of US imperialism, it must undergo drastic reform.  Only a democratic UN can effectively defend the noble principles set forth in the UN Charter.