A contradiction deeply embedded

October 24 is celebrated by the international community as the United Nations Day. On this day, in 1945, the treaty to create the United Nations (UN), which was signed by the countries attending the conference in June of that year, came into force. The treaty was the result of the deliberations of the countries that had met in San Francisco from April to June. The primary purpose of the UN was stated, at that time, to be the prevention of devastating wars like the Second World War. However, the victors of the Second World War decided that the UN must, above all serve, their interests. Hence, they determined to retain control over the Security Council (UNSC) which was mandated to ensure international peace and security. Thus, right from the beginning, indeed in the conception of the UN itself, a contradiction became embedded.

The essence of this contradiction lay in the victors of the Second World War proclaiming that were committed to create a just, equitable and democratic world order and yet in the vital matter of international peace and security they insisted on the creation of the UNSC where each of them— United States, Britain, France, Soviet Union and China---would be permanent members and also have the power to individually exercise a veto over any decision that the Council took. Thus, even if one of these P5 countries determined that a UNSC decision was not in its interest it could veto it.

For the rest of the members of the UN this was a case of double jeopardy: only a few of them—initially five which was later increased to ten---could be members of the Council and there too they were put in an inferior category. It would not be wrong to state that the UN was designed to really look to the interests of the victors and that even after the passage of over seven decades these countries are unwilling to give up their privilege contained in their permanent membership and veto power.

The world has entirely changed in the past seven decades and new states have come to the fore which have more comprehensive power than some of the veto holding permanent members of the Council. These states have been calling since almost three decades for changes in the UNSC; while many ideas have been floated and some negotiations have occurred in the General Assembly there is no prospect of an early change in the composition of the Council. And, there is not the remotest possibility, as yet, of the P5 either giving up their permanent membership or their veto.

Thus, since its creation the UN has failed to prevent war and bloodshed. If no world war has taken place, it is because of the deterrence provided by all the P5 holding nuclear weapons which has assured mutual destruction. However, its failures in the area of peace and security does not mean that the UN has not been vital for promoting global interests in other spheres such as economic and commercial, development, health and food security and culture, Besides, as the world is getting more and more interconnected because of technological progress it is essential that there is global cooperation to ensure that confusion is avoided and orderly harnessing and use of technology occurs. This is managed either through the organs of the UN or through its associated bodies. Even in the political arena it can be said with certainty that the decolonization process, in which India under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru played a very significant role, would not have been as relatively smooth as it was in the absence of the UN.

There is little doubt that the most important task before the UN in contemporary times is to steer the world through the adverse impact of climate change. The main forum for negotiations in the climate change area is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). That is the primary international agreement which came into force in 1994—three decades ago—to handle the dangers to humanity on account of changes to the environment caused by human activity. It was recognized, on the basis of scientific evidence, that industrialization which was based on the use of hydrocarbons had released greenhouse gasses which had led to a rise in temperatures. The developed world also recognized then that it was their progress based on industrialization that had led to global warning.

They agreed then to lead the way towards sustainable development by developing appropriate technologies and sharing them with the poorer countries. The advanced countries also pledged financial support to the developing world to help it to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As this writer has noted previously in these columns the advanced world has simply not kept to these pledges in the past three decades. Consequently, the world is facing extreme weather events more and more frequently because of global warming.

The parties to the UNFCCC meet almost annually and decisions are taken to move the world towards sustainable development. Now, the developing world has also been asked to shoulder the responsibility that was not originally envisaged in the UNFCCC. Countries like India have taken steps for sustainable development for instance in the energy sector through less reliance on hydrocarbons. However, the advanced world is not willing to change its unsustainable life styles. It is essential it does so because without that sustainable development will only remain a dream. It is therefore essential for the developing countries to come together to use their collective influence so that the developed world does more to retard, if not stop, climate change.