The United Nations’ ability to carry out its mission has been severely constrained in recent years by its member states. And many of its agencies are now facing funding shortages that could severely curtail their work. In fact, multilateralism of all stripes is under strain, from the International Criminal Court to the World Trade Organization—to the World Health Organization.
The United Nations is perhaps the most prominent manifestation of an international order built on balancing sovereign equality with great-power politics in a bid to maintain international peace. But its capacity to do that—and to meet its other objectives, which include protecting human rights and delivering aid—have been severely constrained in recent years by its member states.
The real power in the U.N. lies with the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council—the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain and France. And they have used their positions to limit the institution’s involvement in major recent conflicts, including civil wars in Syria and Yemen. But perhaps no global crisis has underscored the Security Council’s limitations more than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Because of its veto, Moscow has been able to block all efforts at the council to condemn or intervene in a war of aggression that clearly violates the U.N. Charter.
Beyond the Security Council, the U.N. has sprouted additional specialized agencies to address specific issues—health, women’s rights and refugees, among others—that have met with varied degrees of success. In some instances, they have been able to galvanize global action around urgent goals, like UNAIDS’ work curbing the international AIDS crisis. But many of those agencies are now also facing funding shortages that could severely curtail their work, not least the World Health Organization, which has led the global coronavirus response.
In addition to the U.N. and its agencies, multilateralism of all stripes is under strain, in part because of the Trump administration’s hostility during its four years in office toward these organizations due to the perceived constraints that multilateralism places on Washington’s freedom of action. In the absence of U.S. leadership and at times in the face of U.S. obstructionism, many multilateral efforts floundered. Heightened tensions and strategic competition among the U.S., Russia and China have also blocked efforts to address crises, even where their interests converge, as in Afghanistan.
President Joe Biden promised to adopt a more conventional U.S. approach to multilateralism and America’s global role, and his administration has already followed through with efforts to correct course on both scores in its first two years office. But whether that will be enough to shore up the international order remains to be seen. It is unclear whether the WTO will be able to reassert itself as global trade revives after the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance. The International Criminal Court, which could play a vital role in pursuing charges of war crimes emerging from the war in Ukraine, is under pressure from all sides—including the U.S. And the WHO has emerged from the coronavirus pandemic with its reputation severely damaged by its perceived inability to hold countries—particularly China—accountable for failing to meet their responsibilities under the global health governance system.
Other multilateral bodies, including the G-20 and G-7, are finding themselves ill-equipped to exercise any influence, as global powers are increasingly interested in competition rather than cooperation. While Moscow, Beijing and, increasingly, Washington were already looking to shake up the status quo, the pandemic encouraged other countries to try to take advantage of the situation for their own political, economic and strategic gain. Bodies like the G-20 and the G-7 were designed to leverage the economic power of rich countries around a unified response to international crises, but there is little unity to be found at the moment.
WPR has covered the U.N. and multilateral institutions in detail and continues to examine key questions about their future. Will veto-wielding Security Council members continue to curtail U.N. involvement in key geopolitical hotspots, and what will that mean for the legitimacy of the institution? Will the U.N. and its specialized agencies be undone by threatened funding cuts? Will the world be able to formulate a multilateral approach to addressing the economic fallout of the coronavirus pandemic—and now the war in Ukraine? Below are some of the highlights of WPR’s coverage.
Our Most Recent Coverage
Geopolitical tensions will dominate next week’s G-20 summit, as major world leaders convene amid Russia’s war in Ukraine, a heightened U.S.-China strategic rivalry and growing estrangement between the Global North and South. To save the forum from irrelevance, the West must deliver on priorities that matter to the Global South.
U.N. Politics and Security Council Diplomacy
The Security Council’s activities have always been constrained by the five veto-wielding members, known as the permanent five, or P5. There have been regular calls to rethink the composition of the permanent members to reflect contemporary geopolitics, but those efforts have made little progress. Meanwhile, as gridlock in the Security Council hampers many diplomatic efforts, the U.N. General Assembly has taken on added significance as a sounding board for multilateral initiatives that lack great-power sponsors.
- Why the U.N. Charter is working exactly as was envisioned and perhaps even better than its framers hoped, in The U.N. Charter Is Working Better Than It Seems in Ukraine
- How the U.S. could gain some goodwill on Security Council reform, in Biden Can Actually Score Some Quick Wins on Security Council Reform
- Why Security Council reforms won’t happen—and aren’t necessary, in The U.N. Security Council Doesn’t Need Reforming
- Why adding an “African” seat isn’t the Security Council reform that Africa needs, in For Africa, Security Council Reform Means More Than Just an ‘African’ Seat
The Liberal International Order
The creation of the U.N. heralded the rise of an international order based on collective security, liberalized trade and political self-determination. That is now beginning to recede as powerful states like China, Russia and, increasingly, the United States prefer to oversee spheres of influence and disregard the principles of sovereign independence and nonintervention.
- How globalization sowed the seeds of its own demise, in The ‘Golden Age’ of Globalization Is Officially Over
- Why African governments and publics are experiencing a crisis of confidence in the U.N., in For Africans, Multilateralism Is ‘Missing in Action’
- Why the war in Ukraine and the global fallout in its wake are a distillation of the major crises confronting the global order, in The Global Order’s Crisis of Legitimacy Predates the War in Ukraine
- How the international financial institutions can help governments tackle inflation, in The World Bank and IMF Can Help Tackle the Global Cost-of-Living Crisis
One of the strengths of the U.N. and its specialized agencies is their ability to organize relief in the aftermath of a natural disaster or humanitarian crisis. They also work to bring down rising global hunger levels, even as the pandemic and now the war in Ukraine threaten to create skyrocketing rates of malnutrition and food insecurity. But those and the many other roles the U.N. and other multilateral actors have to play in responding to global crises are all being complicated by geopolitical rivalries between the great powers.
- Why the EU’s approach to security cooperation in Africa isn’t delivering, in The EU Should Rethink Its Militarized Approach to African Security
- Why current international legal frameworks for refugees and asylum-seekers aren’t adequate to deal with climate-related displacement, in International Law on Refugees Has a Climate Change Problem
- Why multilateral diplomacy will struggle to address the climate crisis, in Climate Diplomacy Might Be a Dead End
- Why the U.N. is taking a second look at smaller, less ambitious peacekeeping models, in For U.N. Peacekeeping, Smaller Is Looking Better—Again
The U.S. Approach to Multilateralism
Former President Donald Trump consistently criticized multilateral institutions during his four years in office, threatening to cut funding to the U.N. and waging a largely victorious campaign to sideline the International Criminal Court. Meanwhile, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change and the WHO, while bringing the WTO to a virtual standstill. Biden has already reversed some of these moves and is expected to do the same on others. But he will have a harder time repairing the damage done to U.S. leadership by four years of Trump’s presidency—and the possibility of his return.
- How Biden botched the Summit of the Americas, in The Summit of the Americas Amounted to a Long To-Do List
- How Biden approached his first U.N. General Assembly as president, in A Beleaguered Biden Aims for a Reset at the U.N.
- What it will take to follow up words with action on the “New Atlantic Charter,” in Biden and Johnson’s ‘New Atlantic Charter’ Has Big Shoes to Fill
- How the Israel-Hamas war ended Biden’s “honeymoon” period at the U.N., in Biden’s Honeymoon at the U.N. and the Conflict That Ended It
Editor’s note: This article was originally published in June 2019 and is regularly updated.