Reflections on the UN General Assembly: Better together - 80 years and More for Peace, Development and Human Rights

As the world confronts rising geopolitical tensions, authoritarianism, issues around economic autonomy, deepening climate crises, the rise of artificial intelligence, and the genocide in Palestine, the recent gathering of world leaders in New York City at the 80th session of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly convened at a crucial time in international affairs. This Assembly marks 80 years since the UN was founded after the dissolution of the League of Nations and highlights the need for major shifts in the distribution of power within the UN. 

Born out of the failed efforts of the League of Nations to establish a governing body for the maintenance of world peace, the United Nations was established in 1945 “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small” and “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”^[1]. After the 1915 invasion of Haiti (an original member state in the League) and occupation by the United States (1915-1934), the League's inability and refusal to acknowledge and buttress self-determination of non-European countries meant not only the institutionalization of racialized hierarchies within the multilateral system but also a blatant refusal to intervene to stop the Italian invasion of Abyssinia^[2] (another member state of the League) in 1935 despite its goals of maintaining peace after the First World War. 

The early years of the UN gave way to modern peacekeeping efforts and demarcated the limits of colonial powers, and gave rise to the modern-day ‘superpowers’ like the United States and the former Soviet Union. The invasion of Egypt in 1956 by Israel, Britain, and France in response to Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal was met with strong opposition by the UN and prompted the UN to create its first large-scale peacekeeping force to support the removal of foreign forces from Egypt. UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold and the General Assembly played a key role in establishing the United Nations as a globally recognized force for the maintenance of peace and stability. 

Additional early areas of involvement for the UN included its response to Congolese independence and the ensuing crisis after the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. The UN’s failures to properly protect Lumumba and the subsequent killing of Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold highlighted early tensions between the aims of the UN to maintain peace in the face of Western and American imperialism and Global South struggles for self-determination. The longstanding involvement in Palestine and the UN’s hesitation to refer to the current situation in Palestine as a genocide further highlight the limits of the UN when member states refuse to participate and the unequal power dynamic that exists within its present-day structure. 

The high point of the international multilateral system was the presentation of the apartheid system as a crime against humanity. The UN's condemnation of the South African apartheid system and imposition of sanctions, along with its initial status as a vessel for the dismantling of colonial rule, garnered early support from African countries. The three World Conferences Against Racism (1978, 1983, 2001), organized by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), led to the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA). The DDPA is a UN document that recognizes the legacy of slavery and provides a framework for the denouncing of racism, xenophobia, and intolerance. These conferences helped to provide hope that the UN could be a true global governing body that operated with the interests of the global majority. 

The struggles within the UN continued to evolve with advocacy for the New International Economic Order (NIEO) and the subsequent American-led efforts to disempower the General Assembly by concentrating power in the UN Security Council. 

"Beginning in 1964 and formulated through a charter and declaration a decade later, the New International Economic Order (NIEO) marked the most ambitious project of anticolonial worldmaking. The NIEO sought to address a wide array of global economic questions, including the ownership of natural resources on land and in the seas, the relationship of multinational corporations to state authority, and the transportation and distribution of traded goods. But at its core, this project sought to address the unequal relations of trade between developing and developed nations."^[3]

Set forth to help end the economic legacy of colonialism and dependency, the NIEO emerged from the Non-Aligned Movement and set forth the following proposals:

1. Sovereignty, Equality and Self Determination
2. Control over Natural Resources
3. Fair Trade and Commodity Pricing
4. Redistribution of Wealth and Economic Power 

The goal of the NIEO, fueled by the global anti-colonial struggle, was to create a more equitable global economic system untethered by the legacy of colonialism while simultaneously suggesting a reshaping of the international system. 

"As if to mark this transformation, postcolonial states set aside the standard General Assembly resolution once more and announced the NIEO with a declaration and a charter. On the one hand, these documents were linked to the founding documents of the United Nations. For instance, the 1974 declaration affirmed “the spirit, purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations to promote the economic advancement and social progress of all peoples.” In doing so, proponents of the NIEO sought legal justification for their ambitious program in the established principles of international law. But these documents also suggested a refounding of international society."^[4]

The potential for the reorganization of international society was met with the contraction of General Assembly powers under the fear that the “tyranny of the majority”^[5] would impact the vision of the United States for a unipolar world order that positions the U.S. as a global hegemon. Additional opposition to the NIEO came from Canada, Australia, Japan, and Israel. With growing U.S. dominance, the result was the consolidation of powers within the Security Council (five member states) and the reduction of the powers of the General Assembly to non-binding recommendations. 

The 80th General Assembly saw leaders from around the world calling for a change in the UN power structure, highlighting its limitations to effect real and timely action when the power is consolidated in the hands of those doing the most harm. State leaders from the Global South, including many African leaders, presented actionable items for restructuring the UN, which include shifting power from the Security Council to the General Assembly. It seems the unequal integration of the world, and the binding and veto power of the five member states over the non-binding powers of the 193 countries that make up the General Assembly, has once again become unacceptable. Some leaders argued the need for restructuring on the basis that the current members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and their political and economic interests have historically prevented the UN from living up to the aims of its Charter. 

The Global South has long recognized the UN as an institution that continues to reflect global power imbalances. Concerns raised by non-western nations include the unequal power of the Security Council over the General Assembly, which feeds into the selective action that the UN takes towards global issues and unequal application of peacekeeping practices. Furthermore, the UN’s focus on security over autonomous development has continued to perpetuate global inequality, and investments in security measures over social advancement triggers, like investments in health and education infrastructure. 

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Motley spoke about the erosion of truth, trust, and fairness in the face of global conflict, inequality, and the climate crisis. She referred to the erosion of truth from global leadership as a major limiter for our shared future. “When we lose shared truth, our countries and our global society lose their center of gravity”.^[6] PM Motley also discussed the proliferation of global violence, touching on both the need for peace in Ukraine as well as in Gaza and Sudan. On the Security Council, Motley said the following, “You cannot ask us really to show up for family photos and votes when you need them and then exclude us from the family’s decision making. As if you are the grown-ups and we are the children”.^[7] Arguing that the Security Council must reflect the multipolar reality of today's world. 

African leaders from the Sahel leveraged the framework of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) as a model for what total cooperation and community within the UN system could look like. Specifically, the Prime Minister of Burkina Faso, Rimtalba Jean Emmanuel, stated that as part of the AES, Burkina Faso is part of a “community of aspirations, forum of renaissance, and breaking with the past…AES is not a retreat; it is not a way of turning inwards, not at all. It is we asserting that we have the right to determine what happens to us, to pinpoint our own priorities, and to craft regional cooperation that exclusively serves our people. This choice is a matter of dignity.”^[8] Similar to Motley, Rimtalba called out the current framework of the UNSC, stating that if the decisions of the General Assembly are not binding, what can truly be done? “What is even worse is that this Council, whose role today is misused, is in fact a troublemaker, as a result of tacit, underhand and sometimes active complicity of some of its permanent members, who are themselves major actors and financiers of the crises of our time”^[9]. Comparing the current status of the UN to the failed League of Nations, he stated, “The UN is now in the same situation as the defunct League of Nations,” he underscored, “calling on the Secretary-General to make the UN a true guarantor of peace and security worldwide, instead of an instrument of domination in the hands of the most powerful nations”^[10].

It is under these calls for change that countries focused on the failings of the UN to respond to the genocide in Palestine. At this particular annual meeting, the moral and ideological leanings of leaders were on full display with only the US and its genocidal partner, Israel, appearing to be unfazed by the genocide in Gaza. Whether in the form of lukewarm statements on needing to find an immediate solution to the “war” and “conflict” between “Israel and Hamas,” to outright condemnation of the savage and barbaric genocide of Israel on the people of Palestine, nearly all state leaders included a discussion of the genocide in Gaza in their statements.

The Colombian President Gustavo Petro was one of the most outspoken leaders concerning the atrocities taking place in Palestine: “We’ve had enough words; it’s time for Bolívar’s sword of liberty or death…”^[11]. He called on US citizens to be disobedient to their regime, and argued that there is “no chosen people” and that all of humanity has been chosen. President Petro asserted, “We need a powerful army of the countries that do not accept genocide...That is why I invite nations of the world and their peoples, more than anything, as an integral part of humanity, to bring together weapons and armies.” Petro's speech was underscored by the mass walkout of world leaders during the speech of Netanyahu. Those who walked out included Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Spain, Ireland, and Pakistan, while a total of 77 delegates were not present during Netanyahu’s address to the UN. 

The lack of action from the UN regarding the Palestinian genocide highlights the limits of the UN when member states refuse to participate and the unequal power dynamic that exists within its present-day structure. Additionally, it underscores the limitations of the current UN framework despite the 1948 Genocide Convention. Under the Convention, it is up to the UN to intervene to end genocide. With the UN and Human Rights Watch officially recognizing that a genocide is taking place, the non-action from the UN is in direct violation of International Law and the Genocide Convention. The consolidation of power within the Permanent Five (P5) and its veto power, however, continues to prevent intervention and perpetuate human suffering and the prolongation of violence, as the United States has continued to veto any resolutions pertaining to protecting Palestinians and ending the genocide. 

In the face of the rising shadow of fascism in the US, the need for a shift in power away from the Security Council towards the General Assembly becomes more urgent. US President Donald Trump's speech at the UN showed the apathy of the United States government towards the international community and cooperation with Trump reiterating his commitment to “America First” and posturing on his alleged successes while in office. “On the world stage, America is respected again like it has never been respected before. You think about two years ago, three years ago, four years ago, or one year ago, we were a laughingstock all over the world.”^[12] Trump questioned the efficacy of the UN, stating, 

“What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. I’ve always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it’s not even coming close to living up to that potential, for the most part. At least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It’s empty words, and empty words don’t solve war. The only thing that solves war and wars is action”.^[13]

As usual, Trump used his UN speech as an opportunity to state that he is ‘always right’, whether that be in reminding everyone that he once bid on the remodel of the UN building or warning leaders that their countries would ‘go to hell’. “It’s time to end the failed experiment of open borders. You have to end it now. It’s — I can tell you. I’m really good at this stuff. Your countries are going to hell.”^[14] In attacking migration as the evil that the UN has been unable to deal with, the U.S. president's speech constructed Europe and North America as being the victims of the current global order, once again reinforcing racialized hierarchies of global dynamics that position the majority of the world as a threat to white civilization and domination. In this sense, the president projected the “culture wars” his regime has been stoking nationally onto the international world.

The narcissistic, isolationist^[15], and populist ramblings of President Trump at the UN not only continue to diminish the US standing as a legitimate global power, but it is also a stark contrast to the struggles of Americans like W.E.B. Dubois who fought alongside the Global South for local and international systems based on equality. Dubois was one of many Pan Africanists that was dismayed by the intervention of apartheid champion Jan Smuts^[16] at the United Nations Organization Conference in San Francisco in 1945, as the UN was being reorganized to reproduce imperial power relations, he reflected: 

“We have conquered Germany... but not their ideas. We still believe in white supremacy, keeping Negroes in their place and lying about democracy when we mean imperial control of 750 millions of human beings in colonies.” (as quoted in Getachew, 2019: 72)

Once again, at the 80th annual meeting, the UN has become a battleground for leaders struggling to overcome the ideas of fascism and white supremacy. Most importantly, the ramblings of the U.S. President served as a reflection point for the necessity to respond to calls from other world leaders on the need for the General Assembly to take over the United Nations Security Council as the ultimate decision-making body. The call for equality among nations and the restructuring of the constitution and power of the Security Council require urgent consideration, as well as the willingness to stop violence, aggression, and economic subordination of militarily superior member states against other states and autonomous nations. The response to these questions will determine the fate of the UN. Although the current structure of the UN continues to prioritize the interests of the few over the welfare of many, true multilateralism can only exist when member states and peoples are equal in theory and practice.

Endnotes