The United Nations has, unfortunately, become somewhat of a joke, a shell of what it was intended to be. From ignored genocides in Rwanda and Sudan, to the tepid response to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, to the constant stream of “nonbinding” measures that issue from the General Assembly on pressing world issues, the UN is often spoken of with a scoff and the question, What can they even do?

Clearly, common critiques of the United Nation’s effectiveness have merit. But the problem lies not in any inherent flaw in the idea of a world forum, as some might contend, but in three primary institutional inadequacies: inequitable political structure, lack of financial and ideological support from powerful member nations when the UN disagrees with them, and the inability of UN peacekeeping forces to perform their missions due to strict combat doctrine and the challenge of finding troops to staff them.
Arguably the greatest issue is the UN’s organizational structure.

The General Assembly, the branch of the United Nations where every nation gets one vote, is woefully underpowered. Resolutions are non-binding; the General Assembly has the power only of debate. The Security Council holds all the real power. Composed permanently of only China, France, Russia, the UK, and the US, along with a rotating cast of 10 temporary members, the Security Council is the only organ of the UN that can enact binding measures. Only permanent members have veto power. Additionally, the Security Council is composed of World War II Allied countries, some of which have arguably lost much of their international prestige and standing and no longer deserve to dominate, such as the United
Kingdom. The fact that the Security Council is blatantly controlled by rich western nations ensures that those with power in international relations will maintain it and those with none will never gain it.

The second greatest problem with the UN is the fact that powerful member states, especially the US, routinely and blatantly ignore UN resolutions and do not respect the body’s authority. Observe the war in Iraq, where the US unilaterally engaged in an aggressive military campaign without the approval of the UN. Additionally, member states regularly refuse to pay their monetary dues to the UN. The US currently owes the UN about $2 billion.

Finally, we come to allegedly ineffectual UN peacekeeping missions. While the UN actually achieves its objectives in two out of three missions, there are standout counterexamples that cast doubt on the abilities of peacekeeping forces, such as the famous case depicted in Hotel Rwanda of Lieutenant
General Romeo Dallaire’s plea to the UN for permission to stop genocidal acts in Rwanda in 1994. This particular instance highlights perfectly the two greatest problems with UN military intervention. First, extremely strict rules of engagement designed to preserve neutrality prevent UN peace keepers from being anything more than human shields. They can shoot only if shot at and may take no preventative action to defend civilians. Any military commander will tell you that a force that can’t attack or even really defend is no force at all. Second, there is the challenge of finding soldiers for UN missions. Since the UN has no standing military of it’s own, troops must come from member nations own military forces. Troop levels are often far below what is necessary. Even if General Dallaire had received approval from UN headquarters to protect civilians, his force would have been far too small to be of much use.

So we come to a picture of a United Nations in need of dramatic repairs. But none of these problems is insurmountable. While many leaders of nations fear the creation of an authority more powerful than the state, the world has become so economically and socially connected that some sort of true, democratic, representative world forum is not only desirable but necessary. The global nature of the current economic and environmental crises demonstrates that well enough.

The first and most pressing need is to reform the UN’s power structure so it is far more equitable and representative. First, the Security Council should be disbanded. It is a rich nation’s club that allows the global elite that have always dominated to continue to dominate. It is no accident that every Security Council permanent member besides China is a former colonial power. Abolishing the Security Council
would go a long way toward legitimizing and democratizing the UN. Second, the General Assembly should be radically reformed. It should be given the power to issue binding measures. It should also be perhaps reimagined as a two-tiered body similar to the US legislature, to ensure that both large and small nations are represented fairly. The ability to vote in this new General Assembly would be strictly conditional on the timely payment of UN dues.

Finally, the UN needs its own standing army and perhaps an amphibious assault naval group and a small air force. It doesn’t need to be too powerful, and it doesn’t need to be too big; but if the UN had its own force that the General Assembly could vote to deploy, it would drastically reduce the pressure on member nations to supply their own troops. Rules of engagement for UN forces would need to be altered as well. UN commanders must be able to actively protect civilians and aggressively engage any enemy military that is violating international law. In short, the UN needs a standing peacekeeping
force that can fight.

As villages became cities, cities became city states, and city states became countries, it is time for us to recognize that this new, complicated and sometimes frightening global interconnectedness requires some sort of authority beyond that of state governments. We need to act as one. We need an organizing force to combat the pressing and pervasive problems of global climate change, economic turmoil, human rights violations, population growth and dire poverty. In order to work together as a whole, we need a place where we can meet, discuss and decide as a whole, and as equals.