Does Donald Trump have a point about the purpose of the United Nations?

It can’t agree on many things and can’t enforce the decisions when it does. Sean O’Grady looks at the point of the United Nations and whether the United States could really help it reach its potential

If Donald Trump wasn’t already in a bad mood when he arrived at the United Nations in New York, he was soon in high dudgeon when an escalator broke down the moment he and Melania stepped onto it. Any hopes his good humour might be restored were dashed when he arrived at the podium to discover the teleprompter had also failed.

He then proceeded to lay into the organisation at its 80th General Assembly, traditionally a reverential and self-congratulatory affair involving prime ministers, presidents, kings, princes and chancellors. Trump was heard in stony silence, punctuated by occasional gasps of disbelief. His scepticism was rooted in some inconvenient truths…

What did Trump tell the world?

Lots, but as far as the UN itself is concerned he bemoaned its ineffectiveness, expressed in saloon bar terms: “What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential. I've always said it. It has such tremendous, tremendous potential, but it's not even coming close to living up to that potential. For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up.”

Is he right?

Yes and no. It’s a huge organisation and can only ever be as good as its member states allow. In some areas, the UN and its many agencies historically have fulfilled their functions well. The International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, remains a trusted watchdog overseeing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement and conducting investigations into countries accused of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, such as in Iraq and Iran. However, it has been unable to prevent the spread of such weapons: it has weak powers of enforcement and cannot make any country cooperate, still less give up missiles.

It is difficult to ignore the fact that the US has occasionally disrupted the work of the more successful agencies, such as the World Health Organisation and, more controversially, the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East), both of which it has now left. It has also never joined the UN’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, which deals with war criminals.

Why can’t the UN agree on things?

The war-time allies and founders of the United Nations – who beat the Axis forces of Germany, Italy and Japan – retain their special status as “permanent” members of the Security Council, and this entitles them to a veto on any resolutions they don’t like. China, France, Russia, the UK and the US can stop things happening, and often do. Deadlock is therefore common, such as in 2003 when France resisted intervention in Iraq, or more recently when the US stalled over Israeli action in Gaza.

Removing the vetoes would, in theory, allow for more binding decisions; but that also carries the risk that the great powers would leave if a reformed UN didn’t serve its purpose, rendering it even weaker. The forerunner of the UN, the League of Nations (1920-46), was fatally flawed when the US refused to join, and other major powers walked away from it. Adding, say, Japan, Germany and India to the Security Council wouldn’t necessarily create consensus where it doesn’t exist.

But does it pass some resolutions?

Yes, thousands have been passed by the General Assembly – but their effect is varied, and only the ones agreed by the Security Council (where the vetoes are exercised) matter much. One of the most famous is Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbours – accepted by the belligerents, great powers, and a rare moment of agreement. It is an excellent example of the uses and limits of the UN. It declared the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security”. It has never been fully enacted – some 58 years on, the occupied territories remain so – but it has also given a context, framework and a certain amount of momentum to subsequent successful peace treaties reached between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

Why can’t the UN enforce its decisions?

Even when it decides things, it has no “world army” of its own to end or prevent wars, and only lightly-armed “peacekeepers” to monitor any agreements with the consent of warring parties. A most shameful example was the Srebrenica massacre in 1995, when 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were murdered by Bosnian Serb forces in the former Yugoslavia because Dutch UN troops were unable to protect the UN safe zone.

By the same token, the ICJ has no international police force and relies on domestic jurisdictions to enforce its warrants.

But it fought the Korean war?

Yes, but the use of force in 1950 to counter a communist invasion was only possible because the Soviet Union was boycotting the organisation, and thus couldn’t veto the resolution, and the Chinese communists led by Mao Zedong were prevented from taking control of China’s seat on the Security Council. It’s fair to say that war hasn’t formally ended yet.

Is it all America’s fault?

Obviously not, though it has effectively destroyed the World Trade Organisation. Taking into account the sorry story of the League of Nations, American isolationism and exceptionalism (and its unconditional support for Israel) haven’t helped. The “tremendous potential” Donald Trump spoke of – notably on the climate crisis and peace in the Middle East – cannot be unlocked under his policy of America First.