The United Nations at 75: to be more political again

My opinion piece on the United Nations, as published today, in Portuguese language, in the Diário de Notícias (Lisbon)

 

Maintaining the relevance of the United Nations

Victor Angelo

 

The United Nations celebrates 75 years of existence at the beginning of the coming week. This is also the week of the General Debate, which allows world leaders to address the General Assembly and those who are prepared to hear them. This year, despite the symbolic importance of the anniversary, everything will have a low profile, digital-only, because of the pandemic. The heads of state and government will not travel to New York. They will send videos, in most cases with the usual nonsense intended for their domestic audiences. The absence of the leaders will cause the most relevant part of the annual meeting to be missed, which is to allow a whole series of face-to-face meetings among the great ones of this world. All this makes this year's session relatively invisible, precisely when the United Nations needs to regain international attention. 

It may be that the US President will be the only one to make the trip and speak in person. It would be advantageous for him to do so to as it would allow him to spend some time with Secretary General António Guterres. Donald Trump is known to slow down his impulses when there is personal contact, something that has not happened between the two for quite some time. But more important than whether he goes to UN headquarters is what the President will say. There has been a lot of speculation and nervousness around it. There are even those who say it might include the threat of his country leaving the United Nations. I don't think he will say that. That it is going to be a speech aimed at the American electorate, it is going to be. It will mention Israel and the recent diplomatic victories President Trump managed to pull out of his hat. We can also expect strong references to his pet enemies, starting with Iran. In relation to this, one can anticipate direct criticism of the Russian and Chinese positions, a criticism that will also touch the Europeans, because they have not supported recent American decisions on Iran. But above all, I fear that the President will develop a narrative that will allow him to justify a hypothetical intervention in Iran in the coming weeks, something that cannot be ruled out as a possible electoral asset. 

President Trump does not seem to have much regard for the UN. He and his team have already realized that they cannot use it meekly as an instrument to give them international legitimacy after the event. This was the case at the end of August, when the Security Council rejected the US claim to impose new sanctions on Iran. In these situations, the American response has been one of two: either to leave the specialized organizations of the UN, as seen with UNESCO, the Commission on Human Rights or the WHO; or to marginalize and ignore the institution, as has happened with the United Nations Secretariat. Moreover, the current American leadership has already shown that it does not believe in multilateral solutions. The prevailing foreign policy option is to make pressure and demands, based on the principle that might is right.

Faced with the erosion of multilateralism and marginalization, the response must be powerful. It must be based on the constant repetition of the fundamental role of the UN in promoting peace and security, as these concepts are understood today. This means the recognition that the organization exists to facilitate political solutions, in case of risk, threat or conflict. The dimensions of development and humanitarian action are important pillars of the UNAIDS system, but the primacy must be given to political work. This is the message that New York must make heard with a firm voice. And explain that for there to be peace and security, there must be respect for people's dignity, their rights and aspirations for freedom, good governance, and equal opportunities. In other words, the ideas of human development and individual security must be given a more intense political sense. These concepts were formulated in the 1990s and recognized as major advances in the way international relations are viewed.  They remain, however, orphans in terms of the political oratory. They need to be translated into a political language. This one remains timid and traditional, very much based on the sovereignty of states and non-interference in the internal affairs of each country. The narrative must now, at the age of 75, stress the need for a balance between sovereignty and the rights of each of us. "We, the peoples of the United Nations," as it says at the beginning of the Charter.