Lack of legitimacy or restructuring? Last week, the United Nations General Assembly received criticism from both progressive and conservative world leaders for the UN’s model of organization amid wars, conflicts and, for some countries, economic sanctions. For the bloc of countries living under embargo, the UN has been inefficient in combating these illegal measures, which has weakened the organization's image among a considerable number of member countries.
The application of sanctions is provided for in the United Nations Charter, the document responsible for founding the UN. According to Article 41 of the text, this type of measure must be approved by the Security Council. However, countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and Iran are the targets of economic and diplomatic blockades decided unilaterally by the United States and the European Union, meaning they have received sanctions without them having been approved by the official channels, that is, the UN Security Council.
According to the Venezuelan Anti-Blockade Observatory, 30 countries had been sanctioned worldwide by September 2024. In total, 31,150 sanctions are imposed mainly by the US and the EU, 97% concentrated in 9 countries and the other 3% in 21 countries. According to the survey, Venezuela is currently targeted by 947 sanctions. Leading the ranking is Russia, with 22,230 measures, followed by Iran (2,726), Syria (1,360) and Ukraine (1,187).
For Sair Sira, a political analyst at Mission Truth group, sanctions are used politically and end up discrediting the UN and the Security Council, which are the instruments with the necessary authority to apply this type of measure.
“The fact that the US is using sanctions as a foreign policy tool accelerates this process of discrediting and distrusting international institutions. When Bretton Woods created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, they were instruments of the international community. Today, they are hegemonic instruments of world powers to apply these measures and control the financial system and economic policy of other countries,” he told Brasil de Fato.
According to him, the United States sanctions some countries without even using the criteria defined by the UN, that is, a country destabilizing international peace. This is the case with Venezuela, which has been blocked by the US for having independent internal politics.
“The criteria by which Venezuela and Cuba are sanctioned, for example, are not because they jeopardize international peace and stability. It's because of something as malleable as democracy, human rights. And I say ‘malleable’ because these are empty concepts they fill in. In other words, when they fill them in, they instrumentalize them,” he said.
World leaders object to the current situation
After a week of debates, the UN Assembly ended with much criticism about the way the organization is currently structured. One of the issues the heads of state raised was the UN's lack of action on crucial discussions such as the war in Ukraine and the massacre in Palestine.
For the Global South leaders, there is a clear division of narratives with the countries of the North that want to impose an economic agenda. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil represented President Nicolás Maduro at the event. For him, in addition to an opposition of ideas, the UN needs to recover the fundamental principles expressed in its founding Charter.
“It's time to rescue the fundamental principles expressed in the United Nations Charter and honor the fact that this organization is at our service, the people, as its statute states. Venezuela places its Bolivarian diplomacy of peace at the service of humanity, as demonstrated by its leadership before the group of friends in defense of the UN Charter,” he said in his speech.
Criticism of the UN's role also came from the most conservative political sectors. The president of Argentina, the ultra-liberal Javier Milei, said that today the organization has become a tool for imposing ideology and, as a result, has lost credibility with citizens.
“At some point – and as usually happens with most man-made, bureaucratic structures – this organization stopped safeguarding the principles outlined in its founding action and began to change. Thus, we went from an organization that pursued peace to one that imposes an ideological agenda on its members on a series of issues that make up the life of man in society,” he said.
The reform of the UN Security Council was also discussed. Lula was one of the leaders who mentioned the matter. The Brazilian president called for the inclusion of other countries in the Security Council and for a different model that makes more effective decisions. The group is made up of the US, France, the UK, Russia and China and, in recent years, has dealt with challenges in passing resolutions that help resolve conflicts.
For Sair Sira, a political scientist and analyst at Mission Truth group, the way the Security Council is organized has helped to erode the organization's image with the international community.
“Fundamentally, the UN is the Security Council. It is the body that has the most relevance, and the preponderance to intervene in a situation using a resolution. That's why the functioning of the UN requires the major powers to agree and have a consensus on a stance to move forward. In polarizing situations like the one we're living in today, it's hard to see Russia and the US agreeing on a resolution that condemns the attacks on Gaza or the invasion of Lebanon,” he said.
The UN, however, has never had the role of encompassing all nations and different positions on global conflicts. The organization emerged after the Second World War, in which the Soviet Union, the US, the UK and France were among the winners, and the United Nations was created after the San Francisco Conference with the aim of mediating conflicts and establishing a new form of multipolar organization.
For Sair Sira, stability has never been achieved during the organization's 79 years and the structure makes this difficult. On September 18, for example, the organization approved the call for an end to the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip. There were 124 votes to approve the text. According to the researcher, that’s symbolic, but the effect is very small in practical terms.
He also points to another issue to be considered: the location of the organization's headquarters.
“The United Nations is not born out of the democratic consent of all countries; it is born out of the intent and spirit of what the US and the Soviet Union thought. But mainly the US. No wonder these discussions take place on US soil. So, the first problem is this: an institution created under the supposed parameters of guaranteeing peace and stability and in these 79 years these things have not materialized,” he said.
Edited by: Rodrigo Durão Coelho
