Effective conflict resolution, prime challenge for UN

Seventy five years on, effective conflict resolution remains a prime challenge for the UN. Even a summary survey of the UN’s conflict resolution history would reveal one of the prime causes for this to reside in the inability of the major powers to work consensually towards international conflict resolution and peace.

The fact that UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres’s call for a ‘global ceasefire’ on the 75th anniversary of the founding of the UN, which falls this year, has apparently fallen on deaf years speaks volumes for the general unpopularity of international peace among sections of the world community. There is a spirit of unwillingness on the part of particularly the big powers to be receptive to peace, understood as the avoidance of armed conflict, and this ought to be cause for some concern among humanists world wide.

There needs to be agreement among all international quarters who matter that the use of force or coercion in conflict situations is not the final and decisive answer to their resolution. The inability of the world to agree on this insight remains one of the principal reasons for the perpetuation of conflict and war.

To be sure, the UN has done its utmost to bring peace to war and conflict zones over the decades by entirely peaceful means but some major conflicts are continuing to rage without abatement. For example, there is the Middle East problem that has been a veritable thorn in the flesh of pro-peace sections over the years and the Kashmir conflict. The complexity of these problems is such that they elude easy resolution. However, it’s plain to see that the lack of a spirit of compromise among the main actors in these conflicts is playing a key role in their relentless continuation.

A chief reason for the seeming ineffectiveness of the UN in the face of festering conflicts is the unwillingness, as observers point out, on the part of the big powers to work in accord towards peace in some major theatres of war. Syria, Libya and the Ukraine, for example, could do with some agreement and compromise among the foremost powers, particularly the US and Russia. What renders easy conflict-resolution in these trouble spots difficult to achieve is the fact that, most often than not, the warring parties are backed by conflicting big powers.

As is known, the key UN organ tasked with the responsibility of ensuring international peace and security is the Security Council. As revealed by UN conflict-resolution history, the main stumbling block to bringing peace expeditiously to some raging conflicts is the use of the veto by the foremost powers, mainly the US and Russia. Since the ascension to major power status by China, the latter too is a major factor in the establishment of world peace and security.

It stands to reason that if there is no agreement among these powers on ways of resolving outstanding conflicts, there cannot be an easy passage to peace. And there cannot be easy access to peace as long as there exist conflicting interests among the big powers in relation to the war zones in question. For example, in Syria, conflicting political and strategic interests among the US and Russia prevented the country from returning to a degree of normalcy. However, Syria is a prime, contemporary ‘killing field’ where civilian lives are snuffed out in alarming numbers.

Besides the unconscionable killing of civilians, what is most unfortunate about these endemic war situations is the apparent helplessness of the UN. The power to perpetuate war or foster peace resides mainly within the UN system with the Security Council and if the UNSC is itself an arena of conflict between hitherto formidable powers, there is no possibility of establishing and fostering global peace speedily.

However, there is the fast-changing global power balance to consider, particularly in the context of rendering the UN a more effective instrument in delivering peace. It need hardly be mentioned that the present composition of the Security Council was determined by the world power balance that existed at the close of World War Two. Hence, the permanent status accorded to the US, Britain, France, Russia and China. But in the current international political and economic order there are countries that could easily compete with the above powers for permanent status and in fact dwarf them. Some of these states are: India, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa.

In the name fairness and equity some of the latter powers need to be inducted into the UNSC. The diffusion of the authority to establish peace and security among a greater number of powerful states could result in the gridlocks plaguing current peace-making being broken. The overwhelming power currently in the hands of the existing ‘big five’ could be more evenly distributed among those potential Security Council members who play a pivotal role in shaping the current global political and economic system. Thus, UN reform needs to be accelerated in the name of more expeditious peace-making.

It could be said that, as matters stand, economic power would prove as decisive in shaping the world system, as military and political clout. In fact, in the days ahead economic power could prove the foremost factor in this respect, considering its central importance in reviving the world economy, post COVID-19.

The emerging economies are those to watch most. In around 30 years time, they would be contributing nearly 60 percent or more to the world’s GDP. It stands to reason that countries would find it to be in their best interests to forge increasingly close ties with these emerging economies. Some of these are: India, Indonesia, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey.

However, minus a spirit of reconciliation and good will among those who matter most, international peace-making would prove arduous. ‘The spirit’ needs to be amply willing to foster peace and not war. This ‘spirit’ will be the icing on the cake of international peace. While economics would be a driving force of the world system, peace-building will prove the fundamental building blocks of a more stable world.