{"id":297576,"date":"2025-07-07T12:00:03","date_gmt":"2025-07-07T11:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=297576"},"modified":"2025-06-30T20:05:16","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T19:05:16","slug":"the-un-at-80-still-humanitys-most-important-organisation-but-member-states-deliberately-destroy-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2025\/07\/the-un-at-80-still-humanitys-most-important-organisation-but-member-states-deliberately-destroy-it\/","title":{"rendered":"The UN at 80: Still Humanity\u2019s Most Important Organisation but Member States Deliberately Destroy It"},"content":{"rendered":"

The UN has been extremely important over the last 80 years in terms of, for instance, global dialogue, multi-dimensional development, international law, peace-keeping, normativity, violence condemnation, and ethics. It has been the<\/em> place to hold member states accountable.<\/p>\n

The UN Charter is the most Gandhian document ever signed by the world\u2019s governments. If the great majority of member states lived up to their obligations in accordance with the UN Charter and including the resolutions they have signed up to, the world would be a much more peaceful, just, democratic, and lawful place.<\/p>\n

Regrettably, there are several reasons why the world is not in accordance with those fine Charter norms and provisions:<\/p>\n

a) The majority of states are nationalistic and do not accept supra-national bodies that could limit their \u2018national interests,\u2019<\/p>\n

b) The general member state conceptualisation of defence and security is based on offensive deterrence, which prioritizes offensive weapons and unavoidably create the classical \u2018security dilemma\u2019 which leads to ever higher armament levels and risks of violence instead of true peace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Additionally, weapons of mass destruction are incompatible with several provisions, the clearest being the Charter\u2019s Article 1 – that peace shall be established by peaceful means and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017).<\/p>\n

One may mention two other reasons, namely:<\/p>\n

c) Civilian conflict-resolution, mediation, reconciliation and similar concepts and policies are by and large ignored because most governments are woefully lacking in knowledge about these matters. Security means preparing for war, not preparing for cooperation, dialogue, mediation and negotiated solutions. And then:<\/p>\n

d) Member states spend a total of 300-400 times more on their military than on what the United Nations and all its family organizations<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

As if this were not bad enough, here is what the UN itself points out, namely that \u201caccording to information\u00a0provided by the UN Controller to the General Assembly\u2019s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), only $1.8 billion has been received against the $3.5 billion regular budget assessments for 2025\u00a0\u2013 a shortfall of around 50 per cent.\u201d<\/p>\n

It should be obvious that the world\u2019s government priorities militate against every idea about a less violent and war-ridden world. In 2024, the world spent US$ 2700 billion on the military.<\/p>\n

There are other reasons, but these are enough to make the point that the main fault is with the member states and their behaviour rather than with the United Nations as a global institution.<\/p>\n

If the member states wanted it to be what its founding intellectuals wanted it to be, it would be completely different from today\u2019s UN.<\/p>\n