Christopher Hitchens labelled himself a polemicist and an iconoclast. Yes, truly Victorian-era words. To put it simply, Hitchens found himself extremely fond of debating and at the same time attacking institutions. I’d like to imagine myself in that bracket and with extreme pride of course it’s a label I’d wear on my chest. After all, if it is not the broader populace that chooses to uphold to question institutions, who else?
This brings me to a complacent organisation I find myself holding deep-seated and angry reservations about. The United Nations. But let’s just not go there, shall we? The first question I find myself and all my other readers asking is whether this anger and hatred is justified. Francis Fukuyama in his influential duology on political order argues that institutions that fail to adapt to the needs and times of the era find themselves entering a long road towards political decay.
Institutions are sticky. We know that. They are slow and laggard titans that take years to adapt only to find themselves entering yet another decade of turmoil and change. However, they are to some extent adept at reforming themselves. But why is it that 30 years since the end of the Cold War, has the United Nations failed to adapt itself? In fact, in my opinion, it only seems that the iron fist that the United Nations wielded against the rest of the world now seems to be crumbling.
Institutions are sticky. We know that. They are slow and laggard titans that take years to adapt only to find themselves entering yet another decade of turmoil and change.
I’d like to blame it on two primary reasons, the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the Veto. Now look, I know the latter is a problem that all of us well-read individuals are aware of. However, the former is an event that bears a relatively more significant impact that we all witness even today.
As individuals, we find ourselves losing most of our lives, opportunities and memories to complacency. To choose to not change, or to seize the moment and plan. Being complacent serves as a painful reminder of what we as individuals might miss. The same can be said of the United Nations. The fall of the Berlin Wall marked two ideological wins. The first of course is the resounding victory of democracy and second, the economic dominion of the United States. I’m trying to be careful with my words here. Let’s be objective. The takeover of the United Nations by the United States, economically is similar to that of the BCCI with the ICC. Considering just the UN budget and not external funding to other agencies, the United States contributes ~22% in contrast to its closest rival, China with a mere 15% (CRS reports). Be it out of their choice or not, The United States either has or already does have a significant regulatory capture on the organs of the United Nations to enact its ideology on the rest of the world, the virtue of its spending power.
The United Nations has been exposed to cracks in its very foundational existence.
However, let’s now return to the first claim with a psychological lens. The fall of the Berlin Wall in extension marked the end of a century of rigid hostilities between ideologies. The death of soviet communism and the triumphant victory of democracy allowed the United Nations some breathing room, some time to adapt, reform and more importantly assume a role of maintaining peace. The idea of re-writing institutions for this reform was not undertaken. The possibility of developing economies to usher in a new power system was not considered. The re-emergence of old ideologies under a veiled, hostile and draconian measure in China was not considered. The deepening of hostilities emerging through trade wars, sanctions and intelligence warfare was not considered. The cumulative impact of the internet was underestimated because of its capitalist tendencies. The leaders of the 90s were busy rebuilding domestic institutions and propagating democratic ideals in conflict-ridden nations while failing to account for the broader geopolitical spectrum. The United Nations had failed to emerge as an institution capable of facilitating dialogue between diverse economies on equal footing. In essence, the short-term joy of the fall of the Berlin Wall had overextended its welcome.
Let’s build on this hypothesis further. For this, I want to take you on a detour and rewind to 1945. The fateful Yalta Conference. As the three titans of the Alliance met, there germinated the first thoughts of the United Nations. Putting their massive egos aside, the victors formulated an international organization to prevent the horrors of WWII. Driven by the motivation of limiting excessive state power, they drafted a Charter to prevent the possibility of a nation-state from inflicting such devastating horrors on the global population. However, the fault lies now in the failure of that same Charter to account for non-state actors.
The failure of adaptability, dominance driven by funding and the incapability of dealing with non-state actors pose existential threats to the United Nations.
Labelling an individual or an organization a non-state actor, freezing bank accounts and imposing travel bans all pale in comparison to the damage inflicted by such terrorists. Now, how does an organization specialized in combating state violence manage to handle this strife? Yes, what I’m insinuating is dangerous. You’d deem it treacherous. The United Nations has been exposed to cracks in its very foundational existence.
The failure of adaptability, dominance driven by funding and the incapability of dealing with non-state actors pose existential threats to the United Nations. Coupled with the endemic, biased and redundant veto of P5 nations in the Security Council which has been reduced to ideological signalling yields a sticky, unaccountable organization that is driven by self-interest to survive (Indicated by its ineffective resolutions passed on Israel and Russia). Case in point, this wonderful report drafted by Macalester International.
Former UN secretary-general Dag Hammarskjöld’s words “The United Nations was not created to bring us to heaven, but to save us from hell,” do ring true. The United Nations now plays the role of Charon, the boatkeeper on the river Styx admiring the petty arguments between countries as we descend an endless spiral.
(Divith Narendra is a student of data science, economics, and business with a passion for integrating data and statistics. He writes extensively on industry trends and geopolitics. His works were featured at the G20 and published by Cambridge Union Press. Views expressed are the author’s own)
Balaji Subramanian 
Dhruv Ashok 
Aayush Pal