here’s a question that continues to be asked on the global stage: “What does the UN need to do to stay relevant?” This, however, assumes that the UN is relevant. And, even if we settle this assumption in its favor, we are left with other questions in need of answers, including whether the UN has the relevance to move the needle with respect to the multiple, historic challenges we face as a planet currently, such as climate change, poverty, conflicts, and health crises (dubbed the ‘polycrisis’).
These questions, while seemingly novel, aren’t new. Consider the birth of a nation. In October of 1960, the giant of Africa—Nigeria—officially gained independence from England, and just six days later, it hoisted its flag at the UN as its 99th member. In proper form, she began active participation in several organizations within the UN, from UNESCO to the UN's peacekeeping forces. By every account, this newly–minted nation appeared ready to engage with the world and tackle the problems of its time. Yet, in his speech to the UN a year later, Nigeria’s then–foreign minister and Ambassador to the UN, HRH JaJa Nwachukwu, expressed his disillusionment with the “major powers.” He criticized them for indulging in destructive behavior, lacking wisdom, and failing to provide objective leadership. The context was the squabbling between the Western powers and Russia over the election of the next UN Secretary–General, causing a dispute that stalled much–needed action on one of the crises of that time—civil rights (and anti–colonialism).
So, these questions are not new, nor are the answers. 1960s Nigeria quickly discovered that those hopeful for and willing to contribute towards desirable outcomes from a well–functioning UN, are likely to be disappointed. Now, as in then, the nationalist tone set by the “major powers” known as the P5, or the Permanent Five, referencing their “permanent” member status (i.e., U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China) is inherently at odds with the UN’s commission to resolve extraordinary challenges in a polycrisis world. The P5 members are united in their nationalism, and to assert its relevance, the UN must resolve this five–party stagnation structure. An effective, trustworthy, and representative UN is unachievable should P5 members retain veto power and remain the ‘United Nationalists.’ If this happens, then perhaps it’s time for other nation–states to “unionize” and form a new faction that ensures the cost of favoring nationalism over solutions to pressing problems is incredibly high.
a global affairs media network
The ‘United Nationalists’ undermine UN’s relevance and purpose
Abeokuta, OG, Nigeria. Photo by McBarth Obeya from Pexels.
September 27, 2024
Does the UN have the relevance to move the needle with respect to the multiple, historic challenges we currently face? The nationalist tone set by the P5, or the Permanent Five, is inherently at odds with the UN’s commission to resolve extraordinary challenges, writes Ike Ikeme.
T
here’s a question that continues to be asked on the global stage: “What does the UN need to do to stay relevant?” This, however, assumes that the UN is relevant. And, even if we settle this assumption in its favor, we are left with other questions in need of answers, including whether the UN has the relevance to move the needle with respect to the multiple, historic challenges we face as a planet currently, such as climate change, poverty, conflicts, and health crises (dubbed the ‘polycrisis’).
These questions, while seemingly novel, aren’t new. Consider the birth of a nation. In October of 1960, the giant of Africa—Nigeria—officially gained independence from England, and just six days later, it hoisted its flag at the UN as its 99th member. In proper form, she began active participation in several organizations within the UN, from UNESCO to the UN's peacekeeping forces. By every account, this newly–minted nation appeared ready to engage with the world and tackle the problems of its time. Yet, in his speech to the UN a year later, Nigeria’s then–foreign minister and Ambassador to the UN, HRH JaJa Nwachukwu, expressed his disillusionment with the “major powers.” He criticized them for indulging in destructive behavior, lacking wisdom, and failing to provide objective leadership. The context was the squabbling between the Western powers and Russia over the election of the next UN Secretary–General, causing a dispute that stalled much–needed action on one of the crises of that time—civil rights (and anti–colonialism).
So, these questions are not new, nor are the answers. 1960s Nigeria quickly discovered that those hopeful for and willing to contribute towards desirable outcomes from a well–functioning UN, are likely to be disappointed. Now, as in then, the nationalist tone set by the “major powers” known as the P5, or the Permanent Five, referencing their “permanent” member status (i.e., U.S., UK, France, Russia, and China) is inherently at odds with the UN’s commission to resolve extraordinary challenges in a polycrisis world. The P5 members are united in their nationalism, and to assert its relevance, the UN must resolve this five–party stagnation structure. An effective, trustworthy, and representative UN is unachievable should P5 members retain veto power and remain the ‘United Nationalists.’ If this happens, then perhaps it’s time for other nation–states to “unionize” and form a new faction that ensures the cost of favoring nationalism over solutions to pressing problems is incredibly high.
