“It has long been India’s aspiration to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. It doesn’t seem to be a prize worth having. If India is serious about international co-operation it must seek to build a consensus for new global institutions, not try and squeeze an extra privilege in a dysfunctional system. At almost 70, the United Nations has long outlived its purpose.” – Dhiraj Nayyar
The last six months have been horrible for global peace and security. In the Middle East, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has been rampaging through civilisation as we know it. In Ukraine, Russia is behaving with impunity. At almost the same time, Ebola is ravaging three of Africa’s poorest countries, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Thousands of people have lost their lives, many more are displaced. In the midst of all this the obvious question is: Where is the United Nations? Unfortunately, it just isn’t being asked enough.
If the United Nations and its associate agencies like the World Health Organization can play no real or effective role in containing the insecurities of our time, especially those which have no regard for national boundaries, then why precisely do they exist? The United Nations has an annual budget of around $5 billion (plus a separate $7 billion for peacekeeping) contributed by member-states. Its only purpose seems to be to pamper a vast bureaucracy whose effectiveness would make the babus of Government of India shine in comparison.
It has long been India’s aspiration to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. It doesn’t seem to be a prize worth having. If India is serious about international co-operation it must seek to build a consensus for new global institutions, not try and squeeze an extra privilege in a dysfunctional system. At almost 70, the United Nations has long outlived its purpose.
At the Security Council, the unchanging reality is that the five veto-wielding powers, the US, UK, France, Russia and China are rarely going to be unanimous about any issue, not Ukraine for sure but not even the Middle East. Of course, the fight against Ebola does not need a Security Council resolution. The WHO, an ageing 66-year-old, ought to have been ready for an unprecedented health crisis like this one. But its bloated bureaucracy isn’t quick on its feet. Instead of the WHO leading the fight on the ground, the work has been left to medical NGOs like Doctors Without Borders. Their work is admirable but they don’t have the backing of governments and big budgets to do their work. Even now, the work on fast-tracking potential vaccines and other treatments is being conducted by research institutions and drug companies from countries like the US, UK, France and Belgium. The WHO is in a mere supporting role.
It can be no one’s case that there is no requirement for inter-governmental agencies to solve problems that involve a large number of countries or which spill over borders. But any objective analysis will tell you that the UN, WHO (even the World Bank has struggled to play a meaningful role in the Ebola crisis) and other such institutions set up almost seven decades ago are not doing what they are supposed to. It is hard to radically change these institutions by tinkering around the edges. The only way forward is to abolish these institutions and build new ones, which recognise the reality of the 21st century. It would also be useful to keep trimmed bureaucracies. At times of crisis, the world doesn’t need file pushers. It needs boots on the ground, whether in fatigues or white coats. – The Sunday Guardian, 26 October 2014
» Dhiraj Nayyar is the CEO of Think India Foundation and the Editor-at-Large of Firstpost and Network 18.
Filed under: india | Tagged: bureaucracy, diplomacy, dysfunctional system, ebola, india, UN, united nations, UNSC, WHO | 1 Comment »
