UN blues

The 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) marks a time when the world rests on a knife’s edge, facing a worsening climate emergency, floundering human rights, economies drowning in debt, and great power confrontation.

It is also a time when disagreement over the principles and rules that govern the obligations of sovereign states has become a defining feature of international relations, undermining the foundation of world order. In the words of Secretary-General António Guterres, it is a time when “humanity has opened the gates of hell.”

The Rules-Based International System (RBIS), a hallmark of Western liberal democratic leadership, has provided the framework for conducting international affairs in accordance with the principles of democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and commitment to the principles of the free market.

The World Trade Organization, for example, provides its 164 signatories with a forum to agree on rules for international trade and compliance. The International Criminal Court, enacted by the Rome Statute, holds accountable those accused of international crimes – The United States, China, and Russia have not ratified the Statute.

And the International Criminal Police Organization advances cooperation in the investigation of crime across its 196 member nations. There are other institutions, of course, including the G-7, the World Bank, security arrangements like AUKUS and NATO, and dozens of bilateral and bloc trade agreements.

Each of these institutions is designed to ensure adherence to the rules for conducting international affairs in accordance with the  practices embodied by the RBIS. The UN is the one institution that, more than all the others, exemplifies the legitimacy of the RBIS.

Unfortunately, even as the 79th session of the UNGA was addressing the challenges of poverty, inequality, health crises, migration, climate, and conflict, the very legitimacy of the RBIS was being questioned. As the Secretary noted, we are in a period where the waning legitimacy of the rules on which global order and governance have been based, undermines the supply of collective action at a time when the demand for it has never been greater.

The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Penny Wong, cautioned that the “trust that the UN system can deliver for everyone continues to decline,” noting that voices from Africa, Latin America, the Asia-Pacific region, and small states must be heard.

For many, particularly in the Global South, familiar with rules legitimised purely by the power politics of empire, the reality of the RBIS, despite the ideological rhetoric, represents another zero-sum contest for global influence.

The divide between the Global North and the Global South could not be starker than in the recognition of a Palestinian state. The vast majority from the South (148 of 193 nations) recognise Palestinian statehood. Few in the North, except Norway, Iceland, Spain, Ireland, Sweden, and Poland, identify with the South’s position.

The growing influence of the South (the so-called “rise of the rest”), including those in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), has intensified the challenges to existing norms. As the Summit on the Future at the General Assembly warned, “inaction could create a dark future.” Statements urged delegates to rectify the injustice done to Africa and other regional groups by remaking global governance to benefit all countries, not bolster the powerful few.

At the same time, China and Russia pursue aspirations antithetical to Western interests, values, and the existing RBIS. Both dismiss the RBIS as hypocrisy. China pursues a state-directed, non-market economy with a trade policy that runs counter to the principles embodied by the WTO. India, meanwhile, blocks consensus unless granted concessions.

No other institution, more than the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—a hegemony of the permanent five (US, Britain, France, China, Soviet Union/Russia)—has undermined the legitimacy of the RBIS through its manipulation of the rules to justify bloc politics and self-interest. When the rules do not align with the interests of the P-5, members either ignore or rewrite them.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has destroyed thousands of homes, schools, and hospitals. More than 1,993 children have been killed or injured, with accusations that more than one million Ukrainian children have been forcibly abducted by Russian agents from Crimea and Donbas since 2014.

The UNSC has often dismissed the interests of the 193 member states of the UNGA, which, unlike the UNSC, has no authority to enforce international law. The Secretary-General has no power to influence the Security Council, nor does he have the authority to ensure compliance with international law.

The Geneva Conventions, perhaps the most important component of the RBIS, adopted over seventy years ago, represented a milestone in the evolution of a universal conscience following WWII.

However, even as the Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs noted on the 75th anniversary of the Convention, that “we must go above, beyond compliance, fully protect civilians against harms,” civilian populations were being targeted, killed, and displaced in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Haiti, Yemen, Lebanon, Myanmar, and Syria.

Civilian infrastructures are bombed, famine is used as a weapon of war, and artificial constraints are justified as barriers to humanitarian aid—each a violation of the Convention.

Although the United States, Great Britain, and France are among the top eleven donors to the UN Refugee Agency, the United States, Russia, France, and China have also ranked among the five largest suppliers of weapons between 2008 and 2012. The delivery of international aid and bombs by the same providers to the same victims is at least duplicitous, if not hypocritical, of the intent of the Geneva Convention.

The lack of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the failure to mitigate the impact of ongoing conflicts, climate change, poverty, inequality, and global health crises are, for many, rooted in the economic interests of the members of the UNSC. The existing rules-based order cannot survive the Security Council’s wilful blindness to the excesses of its allies, violations of international laws, or disregard of sanctions and resolutions.

Middle powers like Canada and Australia, with proven legitimacy and exemplary records for cooperation on security and human rights challenges, must do more to redouble their support for multilateralism and compromise in the face of the competing demands between the North and South, and to resist the unilateral excesses of superpower interests.

Australia has led on arms control and disarmament, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, along with adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Australia also initiated the UN peace plan for Cambodia and the ASEAN Regional Forum for dialogue and debate on the peace and security role of the UN.

Canada, along with Norway, has lead on the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines (Mine Ban Treaty) and the Oslo-initiated Cluster Munitions Treaty. China and Russia are among 32 non-signatories.

As forces opposed to liberal democracy are galvanising, middle powers like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Korea must do more to preserve the legitimacy of the RBIS. Middle powers have a unique  opportunity to redouble their commitment to the RBIS in a world where norms of diplomacy are dismissed, economic coercion and intimidation are tools for first-strike retaliation, and anti-democratic and authoritarian leaders reject soft power diplomacy.

Anil Anand is an independent Canadian policy researcher and author with extensive experience in law enforcement, security, and social justice.

This article was published by the Australian Institute for International Affairs.