UN: Guardian of Peace or Shield for Great-Power Politics?

For much of the world, the history is sharply familiar! United Nations (UN) was created in the aftermath of Second World War (WWII) in order to prevent future generations from the horrors of war and to promote international cooperation. But there is a harder question: Was the UN designed primarily as an institution for the world’s people- or as an international system in which the great powers would retain decisive influence?
 
The answer requires an in-depth look back to the collapse of the League of Nations (LoN) and the creation of the UN. The LoN, established after WWI, drastically failed in preventing the WWII. By 1945, the major powers were seeking a new international framework. The UN Charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June 1945 and came into force on 24 October 1945.

The organisation was founded with an ambitious purpose: To maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, promote international cooperation and achieve international cooperation in solving problems, including respect for human rights. But since the beginning, the new institution contained a fundamental tension.

The UN was intended to represent the International Community (IC). Yet its most powerful security mechanism was designed around political scenarios of the victorious powers of 1945.

The UN Security Council (UNSC) has five permanent members - China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and United States, with veto power over the UNSC’s substantive decisions. That arrangement, in fact, had reflected the balance of power at the end of WWII. The world, however, did not remain the world of 1945.


And then there was Trygve Lie. Norwegian politician and diplomat Trygve Lie became the UN’s first Secretary-General (SG), serving from 1 February 1946 to 10 November 1952. Lie sought to make the SG Office more than a purely administrative position. He attempted to establish it as an active diplomatic and political instrument capable of responding to international crises. Over his tenure, the UN’s institutional machinery developed rapidly. In 1948, the UN made United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to oversee ceasefires in the Middle East. The UNTSO became the UN’s first peacekeeping operation and an important early example of international peacekeeping and military monitoring.

In 1950, following the North Korea’s invasion of South Korea, the Korean War became one of the first major tests of the UN. Now Lie supported international actions through the UN framework and sought to mobilise the organisation against the aggression. He also pursued diplomatic initiatives relating to the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Iran and the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir.

The period also coincided with one of the UN’s most important achievements: The adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Lie supported the development of an international system in which the human rights would form part of the organisation’s wider mission. But his tenure also exposed the limits of the UN office. The Korean War intensified the political confrontation of the early Cold War. Lie faced strong opposition from the Soviet Union, while relations between the SG office and major powers became much difficult. He resigned in 1952. What, then, does the Lie episode tell us?

It does not, by itself, prove that the UN was created as a tool of the great powers. The historical record is more complicated. But it does demonstrate an enduring reality: The SG operates within a system ultimately dependent on the political will of sovereign states - particularly the most powerful states.

That tension remains at the heart of the UN today. The UN was created to prevent war. But it was created by states. It was designed to promote collective security. But its most powerful security body contains a veto reserved for five states. It speaks in the name of international cooperation. But the General Assembly - UNGA- represents states rather than directly elected citizens of the world.

This is the central question. Can an international organisation -UN- created in the aftermath of WWII adequately represent a world that has changed dramatically since 1945?

And if the answer is no, what should come next?