BY G. MADARAKA NYERERE
Established 81 years ago, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations was created to promote peace and security more effectively than its predecessor, the League of Nations. It was also tasked with advancing human rights and economic and social cooperation. Today, amid wars, inequality and competing national interests, it is fair to ask whether the UN can deliver on these ideals.
The UN helped create favourable conditions for decolonisation by enshrining self-determination in its Charter. In December 1960, it went further, adopting Resolution 1514 (XV), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Ultimately, African independence was won through the determination of colonised peoples, international solidarity and the use of UN mechanisms to monitor dependent territories, scrutinise colonial administrations, and sustain pressure for decolonisation.
Beyond diplomacy, the UN has delivered tangible benefits to ordinary people. The World Food Programme provides emergency food assistance to communities facing hunger, while the UN High Commissioner for Refugees protects people fleeing war and persecution. UNICEF supports education, including during emergencies, while the UN Development Programme works with African countries to reduce poverty and strengthen governance. Despite the UN’s limitations, these achievements demonstrate how international institutions can help address human suffering and advance development.
Yet, despite these commendable achievements, the UN requires an overhaul. Having invested considerable resources in promoting democratic principles among its members, its own decisionmaking structure remains unequal. In the General Assembly, every member state has an equal vote. Yet, on international peace and security, the 15-member Security Council can make decisions binding on UN members. Worse, its five permanent members can veto substantive resolutions, regardless of support from other members. Representing approximately a quarter of humanity, they wield disproportionate influence over global affairs. Africa’s demand for permanent representation is therefore justified.
Unfortunately, Africa’s voting patterns at the UN do not always reflect a unified position. Divisions have emerged over resolutions condemning Russia’s war against Ukraine, suspending Russia from the Human Rights Council and calling for an end to the US embargo against Cuba. Even the General Assembly’s demand for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza faced 10 votes against and 23 abstentions, despite the ongoing killing of Palestinians. On Security Council representation, however, the African Union has adopted a common position calling for at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats. Only sustained unity, supported by strategic alliances and diplomacy, can strengthen Africa’s leverage and overcome resistance to reform.
The UN remains an indispensable institution, but it must evolve to meet today’s realities. Its relevance will endure only if it becomes more equitable, representative and accountable to all humanity.
madaraka.nyerere@gmail.com
