September 22, 2023
This week’s United Nations General Assembly highlighted the challenges that international institutions are facing and portends further unraveling. While the stated goal of the United Nations (UN) to maintain international peace and security might be inherently aspirational, global leaders have often overlooked the organization’s imperfection because the UN was the only real space for multiple parties- even with conflicting viewpoints – to sit at the same table and be heard.
But on Wednesday, Ukrainian President Zelenskyy laid bare the shortcomings of the United Nations when he remarked to Security Council members that “Ukrainian soldiers now are doing at the expense of their blood what the U.N. Security Council should do by its voting. They’re stopping aggression and upholding the principles of the U.N. Charter.” Other leaders like Brazilian President Lula also highlighted that the Security Council hadn’t taken a firm enough stance against its permanent members who “wage unauthorized wars.” And ironically, even Russian representative Sergey Lavrov preposterously expressed frustration with the UN- commenting that members weren’t adhering to the UN Charter because they were interfering in the “internal” affairs of other nations.
Indeed, that Russia is currently at the helm of the UN Security Council demonstrates how the application of collectivist policies can undermine the very institution that it is meant to uphold. Nonetheless, for decades the UN has played a significant role in non-military areas like humanitarian aid and education. It’s also provided the leading forum for international dialogue at the highest levels, often among real adversaries, and its members are united by a Charter that at least attempts to provide an ethical compass. After existing for decades, and due to its size and scope, the UN carries a sort of gravitas that demands countries pay attention.
This year, however, the heads of state of China, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom, didn’t attend the annual UN General Assembly. While their absence might have been due to conflicting commitments or more immediate priorities, when important people don’t show up to the meeting it sends a signal about the impact of the event and the institution behind it. Notably, while some UN members are clearly frustrated with the organization’s shortcomings in preventing or resolving military conflict, others have been looking to other institutions to provide for many of their geopolitical needs.
For example, instead of depending on UN peacekeeping missions to keep the peace in parts of Africa, national leaders there have increasingly turned to private military groups like the Wagner Group to ensure some degree of regional stability. To help with economic growth and infrastructure developments, some nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America have looked to China to provide loans that don’t come with any ethical demands- simply financial ones. Indeed, there’s been a gradual geopolitical shift where nations, particularly in the Global South, have been looking for alternatives to Western-dominated institutions, and Chinese President Xi is ready at the plate.
President Xi seems to be simultaneously promoting alternatives to Western-led initiatives and downplaying the significance of the current ones. Since taking office in 2012, Xi has attended every G-20 meeting- but he didn’t show up to the most recent one a few weeks ago. While it could be that Xi is dealing with other issues, or that he was trying to snub India, more likely he’s making a statement that the multinational forums he can dominate – like the Belt and Road forum and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization- are the ones worth attending. And it’s convenient that Xi is presenting alternative alliances while geopolitical realignment – spurred by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – is readily underway.
While these nascent alliances, including groups like the recently expanded BRICS, might present a quasi-alternative to Western dominance, they lack key components of the UN. All nations will act in their own self-interest, but the purpose of longstanding international organizations like the UN is to discuss how these actions impact others and make some concessions that will ultimately benefit all involved. Critically, some of the more significant new alliances take a narrow economic view and don’t include states with conflicting geopolitical priorities- eliminating essential voices that require a more inclusive forum. And despite the UN’s shortcomings, these new formations don’t have the key goals for peace, prosperity, health, or climate action – which will ultimately undermine their long-term viability.
The Arkin Group is a strategic intelligence firm offering investigative research, due diligence, international risk and crisis consulting, and security & preparedness services. We can be contacted at 212-333-0280.