With 141 more members present now than on the day it started,
the United Nations has grown in size and strength ““ but for
some, it has failed to realize its potential.
The United Nations was originally formed in order to prevent
global conflicts such as world wars from recurring. In its 60-year
history, it has also expanded to take on humanitarian and economic
issues.
But while many support the causes that the U.N. champions, some
are concerned about the imbalanced political structure of the
Security Council and note that the organization has been unable to
resolve some of the most difficult problems that have come up in
the past few decades.
The United Nations came into being on Oct. 24, 1945, when
representatives from 51 countries joined together in San Francisco
to draft the official United Nations Charter. Since then, the
organization has grown to over 190 members, representing regions
and ethnicities around the world.
When the United Nations first started, many in the global
community were unsure of its purpose and effectiveness, said Vikram
Balakrishnan, undersecretary for Model United Nations at UCLA.
The assembly was born out of the idea that countries needed a
neutral forum in which to address issues of global conflict so that
they would not escalate, he said, and the reason it is effective is
it provides a forum for discussion.
“It gave (countries) a chance, a place to talk. It opens
the door to peace before war,” Balakrishnan said.
Jeff David, a UCLA alumnus and former leader of MUN, said he
believes the United Nations has provided countries with a forum to
address issues troubling the global community.
Balakrishnan said he has seen evolution in the U.N.
leaders’ functions.
There have also been changes in the way the world views the
secretary-general. What began as a strictly administrative position
has evolved into one of an emissary of humanitarian goodwill,
Balakrishnan said.
But both David and Balakrishnan said they believe the United
Nations has yet to live up to its potential.
It has had little success with some contemporary conflicts.
Examples such as the Rwandan genocide, violence in the Middle East
and ongoing terrorism in Kashmir show that the organization has not
been able to dissipate some of the most heated conflicts of this
generation.
Balakrishnan pointed out several reasons why the United Nations
has not dealt with these and other such issues.
One reason that the United Nations is often unable to act as
quickly as necessary.
He said because the organization has no independent funding and
does not have its own standing army, it must get the approval of
various member nations before it can take any action. The politics
of member countries often get in the way of quick action, so when
crises come up, it is often too late to act.
To some, the imbalance of power within the United Nations is a
problem as well.
Some critics, including David and Balakrishnan, say the makeup
of the U.N. Security Council favors some countries while others,
such as Japan and Germany, lack permanent seats at the table.
But the Security Council is not the only place where some
nations get short-changed.
Balakrishnan said he believes smaller countries with less
political clout often do not have their needs met through the
council.
Countries in power still contain too much power within the
United Nations, and while that will always affect security issues,
it should not affect humanitarian issues, Balakrishnan said.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has expressed a need to make
changes and has proposed several reforms.
“We all know what the problems are and we all know what we
have promised to achieve. What is needed now is not more
declarations or promises, but action ““ action to fulfill the
promises already made,” he said to the assembly in March
2005.
However, Balakrishnan and David see the United Nations as an
integral part of the international community.
David said he believes that while it is flawed in many ways, the
world still needs the United Nations.
“It’s an important step toward a more unified
world,” he said.