International institutions face a crisis of legitimacy, particularly with Israel unrestrained by the imperialist powers, and the relative power of the US weakening, argues John Clarke

On 22 September, the UN convened a grandly titled ‘Summit of the Future’ at its New York headquarters to coincide with a gathering of its General Assembly. This included the adoption of a ‘Pact for the Future’ bristling with noble aspirations and objectives. The predictable cast of ‘world leaders’ who were present used the opportunity to offer pledges to build a prosperous and peaceful future that we should take with a very large pinch of salt.

Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, who is never to be outdone when beautiful but empty words are called for, was at peak performance. According to the CBC, he told the delegates that ‘we can recognize that, collectively, we have a responsibility to set our differences aside, to confront the serious global challenges and to deliver on a pact for the future.’ To say the least, the present state of the world suggests that there is considerable room for improvement when it comes to putting such sentiments into effect.

Tensions and contradictions

The UN, of course, specialises in declarations of abstract principles that have nothing whatsoever to do with the harsh realities at play internationally. It would be very easy, therefore, to dismiss the Summit and Pact as another case of rainbows and unicorns. Without doubt, the document does contain plenty in the way of meaningless platitudes. Yet it is also clear that very real tensions and contradictions are simmering behind the diplomatic expressions. Most sharply, very serious discord between the US-led imperialist powers and the countries of the Global South is in evidence and this has sharpened considerably since Israel’s assault on Gaza got underway.

Clearly, the Pact is the product of extensive horse trading between the key players. As such, it seeks to avoid airing differences too blatantly and it covers its tracks with a barrage of noble assurances that no one can take seriously. Yet, these pronouncements are responding to deep-seated global problems and crises that are only too real and serious.

The Pact declares that ‘we are at a time of profound global transformation. We are confronted by rising catastrophic and existential risks, many caused by the choices we make. Fellow human beings are enduring terrible suffering. If we do not change course, we risk tipping into a future of persistent crisis and breakdown.’ We can agree with this statement but only with the important qualification that the governments represented at the UN, especially the most powerful ones, have no intention of changing course whatsoever.

This process of pointing to rational and just solutions that global capitalism is incapable of embracing continues throughout the document and covers a wide swathe. The need for sustainable development on a world-wide scale is stressed and effective responses to climate change are, of course, prominent. There is reference to ‘a rules based, non-discriminatory, open, fair, inclusive, equitable and transparent multilateral trading system’ which will apparently be delivered by the World Trade Organisation!

With the risk of catastrophic escalation hanging over the Middle East and Ukraine, the political leaders assembled at the UN were only too ready to declare piously that ‘we remain committed to establish a just and lasting peace’ and assert that ‘we will redouble our efforts to build and sustain peaceful, inclusive and just societies and address the root causes of conflicts.’ They even thought it fitting, amidst the horrors unfolding in Gaza, to declare that ‘we condemn in the strongest terms the devastating impact of armed conflict on civilians, civilian infrastructure and cultural heritage, and we are particularly concerned about the disproportionate impact of violence on women, children, persons with disabilities and other persons in vulnerable situations in armed conflict.’

All this hypocritical fluff notwithstanding, it is possible to find evidence within the document of considerable and rising tensions within the UN which are in turn expressions of major problems within the present world order. As the burden of intensifying global crises, from the rising cost of living to the impacts of climate change, are imposed on poor countries, the international bodies of adjudication and mediation, including the UN, are increasingly exposed as mechanisms that reinforce and preserve global inequalities. Not surprisingly, the call for the reform of these bodies is being raised with greater emphasis at such a time.

Given this considerable tension, the negotiation process that underlay the drafting of this document produced an acknowledgement that today, ‘our multilateral system, constructed in the aftermath of the Second World War, is under unprecedented strain … transformation in global governance is essential to ensure that the positive progress we have seen across all three pillars of the work of the United Nations in recent decades does not unravel.’

When it comes to this question of ‘global governance’, it was not possible to avoid a glaring practical reality. Under the existing system, most of the countries represented in the General Assembly only get a consultative vote because the resolutions it passes are non-binding. The Security Council holds most of the power and the five permanent members of that body have the ability to veto resolutions.

For this reason, the Pact promises to enlarge ‘the Security Council in order to be more representative of the current United Nations membership and reflective of the realities of the contemporary world and … increase representation of developing countries and small and medium sized States.’ There is a pledge, moreover, to ‘redress the historical injustice against Africa as a priority.’

An article this month is Assodesire, a publication focused on African politics, observes that for ‘Africa, in particular, a continent of 1.4 billion people, having full permanent seats at the UNSC is not just about redressing a historical injustice. It is also a matter of legitimacy and credibility of the Council.’ Sensing the need to offer a modest concession in this situation, the ‘United States has just announced its support for creating two permanent seats for African States at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) but it ruled out extending veto rights to the new permanent members.’

African countries have generally supported the abolition of the Security Council veto but insist that, if it is to be maintained, it must be extended to their new representatives on the Council. Given this, they are unlikely to accept the offer from the US. Thus, this question brings to a head and expresses a deep sense of grievance over the great imbalance of decision-making power within international bodies.

Global realities

The hope of creating a just and equitable system of international governance under global capitalism is doomed to failure. Indeed, the concept of a rules-based system, subject to international law, is something of a polite fiction. As the dominant imperialist power, the US asserts its control over multilateral processes where it can and acts unilaterally when it needs to. At present, the US and its allies go on arming and enabling Israel no matter how many resolutions the General Assembly passes or whatever rulings come down from international courts.

However weak and limited the international structures may be in reality, they still play an important role in terms of creating legitimacy for the world order and as forums for international negotiation and regulation. At present, these institutions are straining under the disruptive impacts of global crises. The failure to obtain a ceasefire in Gaza or to arrest the slide towards regional confrontation in the Middle East, despite overwhelming world opinion favouring such objectives, has created a crisis of legitimacy within the UN.

As its dominant position in the world continues to diminish in the face of major rival powers, especially China, the US has its own credibility problems and its ability to bully and cajole is not as strong as it used to be. Its capacity to manage a global system of ‘indirect empire’ is growing weaker and encountering resistance.

The UN’s Pact for the Future is an attempt to paper over enormous tensions and contradictions with noble expressions and empty promises, but such an effort can’t possibly contain the deep problems of the present world order or the growing dysfunction of the international bodies that serve its interests.