Categories
Opinion The Last Word

A Stronger United Nations

Addressing the UN Security Council on September 20, 2023, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a heartfelt plea “to update the existing security architecture in the world, in particular, to restore the real power of the UN Charter.”

This call for strengthening international security under the aegis of the United Nations makes sense not only for Ukraine — a country suffering from brutal military invasion, occupation, and annexation by its much larger, more powerful neighbor, the Russian Federation — but for the nations of the world.

For thousands of years, competing territories, nations, and empires have spilled rivers of blood and laid waste to much of the world through wars and plunder. Hundreds of millions of people have died, while many more have been horribly injured or forced to flee their shattered homelands in a desperate search for safety. World Wars I and II, capped off by the use of nuclear weapons to annihilate the populations of entire cities, brought massive suffering to people around the globe.

In 1945, this mad slaughter and devastation convinced farsighted thinkers, as well as many government leaders, that human survival was dependent upon developing a framework for international security: the United Nations. The UN Charter, adopted in a conference in the spring of that year in San Francisco by 50 Allied nations, declared that a key purpose of the new organization was “to maintain international peace and security.”

The UN Charter, which constitutes international law, included provisions detailing how nations were to treat one another in the battered world emerging from the Second World War. Among its major provisions was Article 2, Section 4, which declared that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Furthermore, Article 51 declared that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations.”

Although the UN Charter provided for a General Assembly in which all member nations were represented, action to maintain international peace and security was delegated primarily to a UN Security Council with 15 members, five of whom (the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France) were to be permanent members with the right to veto Security Council resolutions or action.

Not surprisingly, the right of any of these five nations to block Security Council peace efforts, a right they had insisted upon as the price of their participation in the United Nations, hamstrung the world organization from enforcing peace and international security on numerous occasions. The most recent instance has occurred in the case of the Ukraine War, a conflict in which, as Zelensky lamented, “all [Security Council] efforts are vetoed by the aggressor.” As a result, the United Nations has all too often lacked the power to enforce the principles of international law confirmed by its members and enshrined in its Charter.

Some people are perfectly content with the weakness of the United Nations. Fierce nationalists, as exemplified by Donald Trump and his Republican followers, are contemptuous of this or any international security organization, and many would prefer its abolition. Others have little use for the United Nations but, instead, place their hopes for the maintenance of international peace and stability upon public and governmental acceptance of great power spheres of influence. Meanwhile, a segment of the international Left ignores the United Nations and insists that world peace will only be secured by smashing “U.S. imperialism.”

Sadly, those forces opposing international organization and action fail to recognize that their proposals represent not only a return to thousands of years of international strife and mass slaughter among nations, but, in today’s world, an open door to a nuclear holocaust that will end virtually all life on earth.

Compared to this descent into international chaos and destruction, proposals to strengthen the United Nations are remarkably practical and potentially effective. Zelensky has suggested empowering the UN General Assembly to overcome a Security Council veto by a vote of two-thirds or more of the Assembly’s nations. In addition, he has proposed expanding the representation of nations in the Security Council, temporarily suspending membership of a Security Council member when it “resorts to aggression against another nation in violation of the UN Charter,” and creating a deterrent to international aggression by agreeing on the response to it before it occurs.

Of course, there are numerous other ways to strengthen the United Nations as a force for peace and to help ensure that it works as an effective international agency for battling the onrushing climate catastrophe, combating disease pandemics, and cracking down on the exploitative practices of multinational corporations. Its member nations could also rally behind the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (still unsigned by the nuclear powers), agree on a UN program to handle the burgeoning international refugee crisis, and provide the world organization with substantially greater financial resources to reduce global poverty and mass misery than it currently receives.

Indeed, the horrific Ukraine War is but the latest canary in the coal mine — the danger signal that people of all nations should recognize as indicating the necessity for moving beyond national isolation and beginning a new era of global responsibility, cooperation, and unity.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is professor of history emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).

Categories
Opinion Viewpoint

Military, Economic Power (Once Again) Fail to Produce Happiness

Although the rulers of the world’s major military and economic powers have repeatedly claimed that they are making their nations great again, their policies have not resulted in widespread public happiness among their citizens.

That conclusion emerges from the recent World Happiness Report-2022, published by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Based on Gallup World Polls conducted from 2019 through 2021, this extensive study provides a revealing look at how roughly 150,000 respondents in 146 countries rated their own happiness. The study’s findings underscore the limited levels of happiness in the world’s major military-economic powers.

There is little doubt about which nations belong in this category. In 2020 (the latest year for which accurate figures are available), the world’s biggest military spenders were the United States (#1), China (#2), India (#3), and Russia (#4). Collectively, they accounted for nearly 59 percent of the world’s military spending and the vast majority of the world’s nuclear weapons.

When nations are ranked by total wealth, a similar pattern appears: United States (#1), China (#2), India (#7), Russia (#13). Despite their ostensibly different economic models, they all boast a hefty share of the world’s billionaires, and once again their ranking is rather similar: United States (#1), China (#2), India (#3), and Russia (#5).

And what has this enormous array of military and economic power produced for their citizens? Well, as it turns out, not a great deal of happiness. The most positive thing that can be said for it is that the United States currently ranks a rather dispiriting 16th on this score. China ranks 72nd. Russia ranks 80th. And India is 136th. Furthermore, over the decade since the annual world happiness surveys began, in 2012, none of these major powers has ever appeared among the 10 happiest nations.

In 2022, the 10 happiest countries were: Finland (#1), Denmark (#2), Iceland (#3), Switzerland (#4), Netherlands (#5), Luxembourg (#6), Sweden (#7), Norway (#8), Israel (#9), and New Zealand (#10).

It is deceptively easy to conclude that the explanation for this high level of happiness lies in the fact that these 10 are all fairly comfortable, economically advanced nations. Even so, there is no significant correlation between a nation’s rank in happiness and its per capita income. Indeed, seven of the nations (Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Sweden, Israel, and New Zealand) did not place at all among the top 12 nations in per capita income during 2021. Finland, ranking #1 for happiness for the fifth year in a row, ranked #25 in per capita income. New Zealand, ranking #10 for happiness, ranked #31 for per capita income. Conversely, Singapore, which ranked #3 in per capita income, ranked #27 for happiness, while United Arab Emirates, which ranked #6 in per capita income, ranked #24 for happiness. Factors other than top incomes were clearly at work in producing the happiest nations.

One such factor appears to be the provision of substantial public services. A striking feature of the world’s nations is that all five Nordic countries rank among the 10 happiest. What these five countries have in common are social democratic policies that counteract income inequality and dramatically reduce poverty by providing free or low-cost healthcare, dental care, housing, education, and childcare, as well as ample pensions and a range of other “welfare state” benefits. Moreover, the other five happiest countries also maintain significant social welfare systems.

The happiest nations also stand out for their relatively egalitarian distribution of wealth. Each of the 10 happiest nations, except Israel, has greater equality of wealth than do the four major military-economic powers. And even that nation’s wealth distribution is considerably more equal than that of the United States and only slightly more unequal than China’s.

Yet another contrast appears when it comes to military spending. Given the enormous Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the four biggest military-economic powers, an adequate “defense” of their nations should be less of an economic burden on them than it would be on the economies of these 10 much smaller, less wealthy nations. But, in fact, the reverse is true in eight of the happiest nations, which devoted a smaller percentage of their GDP to military spending in 2020 (the latest year for which accurate figures are available) than did all but one of the four major military-economic powers. Sweden, for example, spent only 1.22 percent, Denmark 1.44 percent, and Finland 1.53 percent of their small GDPs on their armed forces, while India spent 2.88 percent, the United States 3.74 percent, and Russia 4.26 percent of their much larger GDPs to fund their military might.

Admittedly, poverty and national insecurity do appear to play important roles in reducing human happiness. The lowest ranking nations in World Happiness Report-2022 are very poor nations, or nations plagued by violence, or both, such as the Palestinian territories (#122), Myanmar (#126), Yemen (#132), and Afghanistan (#146).

Even so, as the global happiness studies indicate, great military and economic power bring nations only so far. Ultimately, a high level of happiness requires social solidarity.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner, syndicated by PeaceVoice, is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).