Lack of money, deep division and blame for hypocrisy: the eighty -year -old UN are now really in decline

Every year in September dozens of heads of state and government and hundreds of ministers come to New York on the occasion of the opening of the political season of the United Nations. And every year the condition of the organization becomes more pierce. The activities and budget of the UN Krimpen were already and without intervention, the organization could destroy a shadow of what was the intention of the founders. Who stops the decline of the UN?

Insiders are pessimistic. It goes from bad to worse, says UN connoisseur Richard Gowan of think tank International Crisis Group. “The UN is becoming less relevant.”

The organization is in acute danger, says a UN diplomat who can only speak on a background base. “This is not just a UN week,” wrote Raj Kumar, editor-in-chief of Devex, a news site for development issues. “The future of the UN, of multilateralism itself, is at stake.”

The UN, turned eighty this summer, never had it easy. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union blocked each other. In the 1990s, the UN humanitarian disasters in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia could not occur. At the beginning of this century, the US put bad blood with the invasion of Iraq. Nevertheless, the UN also succeeded in making progress, with attention to human rights, development aid and climate change and with countless indispensable agreements on practical issues such as air traffic and the internet.

But the most recent comprehensive international agreements, such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the adoption of seventeen sustainable development goals are now ten years old. And the realization of those agreements is not going well. The crises, on the other hand, have remained and are piling up.

Every year we say that the UN ended up at a low point and the situation is even worse the situation next year

Half-time

Richard Gowan, by e-mail: “Every year we say that the UN ended up at a low point and the next year the situation is even worse. The big difference this year is the US. I don’t think the US will turn their backs all the way, but the US will be a half-long-wing member of the VN for the foreseeable future.” ”

US President Donald Trump has already turned his back on a number of UN organizations. He has dismantled development organization USAID and wants to review all UN contributions. Nobody knows exactly how the new American attitude will turn out. That is also because Trumps UN ambassador, Mike Waltz, will only start this week. Trumps speech this Tuesday until the general meeting of the UN is therefore met with supreme tension.

Zoom in

Lack of money

Of all UN pests, lack of money is the most acute. With a mandatory contribution of 22 percent to the UN budget, the US is the largest donor, followed by China by around 20 percent. Washington and Beijing have been using their financial influence for years by leaving in the middle for a long time how much they actually pay and when. They usually pay at the end of the year and only when they are satisfied. In this way they keep influence on the Secretary General and that can come in handy if they want to get something done.

In the American budget, no money is reserved for the UN at all, although the president can change that himself. For the UN, this means that a cash flow problem has arisen and that it is not possible to plan.

In addition to the mandatory contribution, countries give voluntary contributions to UN organizations that they find important. The US was traditionally large lenders of development organizations and at peace missions. A large part of that income has evaporated in one fell swoop and many UN organizations such as the World Food Program and the Refugee Organization must therefore cut in a hurry.

American diplomats try to ban the word ‘gender’ from UN documents

Trump has also brought his culture struggle to the UN. American diplomats try to ban the word “gender” from UN documents. Vretail organizations for women’s rights and initiatives against sexual violence fear their survival. For example, there is no more money for the care of victims of rape in parts of Sudan. In Afghanistan, the subsidy to 400 midwives was stopped.

To cope with lack of money and criticism, Secretary-General António Guternres launched a reorganization program this spring. He wants to dismiss 20 percent of the UN secretariat staff, 7,000 of the 35,000 jobs. And he wants to stop how the UN works. The UN has grown from a modest structure to a maze. He will not get much further than remediation, is the expectation. The Guternes period will expire at the end of next year, the candidates for his follow -up are already starting to work out. His most important task, says Gowan, is to ensure that until 2027 the light will stay on at the UN.

Power game

During Trump’s first presidency, China filled the gaps that the US dropped. Now China sets: with 20 percent we are therefore the largest donor and demands more high functions. It is also not necessary for China to close all the holes, says Gowan. If the US runs away, China automatically becomes more important. Beijing only picks up the bill if it is in the interest of China. For example, China does not give at home when it comes to human rights.

Other states also follow the withdrawal of the US closely. The New York Times wrote that Qatar, which is strongly criticized for the exploitation of labor migrants, has offered to accommodate part of the ILO, the UN organization for employee rights. Rwanda, which is under fire because it supports rebels in Congo, would like a UN campus.

In the meantime, Europe is keeping itself remarkably silent. Europe has its hands full on Ukraine, says a diplomat. The Russian threat and the support of KYIV simply cost too much energy and money. Europe cannot afford the dozens of billions that are needed for the UN. In addition, Europe does not want to go straight against the US because the US is indispensable for the defense of the NATO east flank.

And in European countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, which were known as champions of international cooperation, the political climate is changing. These countries also question the importance of development cooperation.

Pavement

The atmosphere in the UN has changed radically over the past five years. Covid-19 was a turning point. During the pandemic, the rich West first foresaw itself with vaccines and left the global south to its fate for a long time. Countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America know since that if they don’t take care of themselves, nobody does it. In the UN they set themselves up much harder than before.

The Pandemie was almost immediately followed by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. After some hesitation, the West came into full action for Ukraine, but was isolated in the UN in a certain sense. The global south turned off the war as a European problem. Moreover, the south found Europe measuring two sizes. If Rwanda becomes active in Congo, nothing happens, if Russia does something in Ukraine, Europe will take action.

Zoom in

Gaza also quickly became a split mushroom. The West condemned Russian aggression as a violation of international law. But, the South argued, when it comes to Gaza, many European countries say that it is up to the court to judge whether Israel commits genocide. With that, the West was definitely known as hypocritical. Countries from Africa and the Arab world are attacking the West under fire, Russia and China, where possible.

The problems that the UN stands for are breathtaking, but nobody seems serious about what the multilateral organization could do in a time of enormous competition between superpowers. Gowan does not expect the UN to implode, but, he says, there must be a debate about the future.

The current crisis could lead to it, a diplomat cautiously suggests that countries that have great importance in the multilateral system step over their shadow and still start a conversation with each other – to save the system.

Zoom in

Give as a gift





Part





Mail the editors