21 Jan Opinion – A Baywatch for a Shipwrecked UN
By,
Fabián Calle, Senior Fellow, MSI²
For any attentive observer, and even for those less attentive to international affairs, it is difficult to find facts in recent years that demonstrate strength, dynamism, and effectiveness on the part of the United Nations in confronting a world marked by profound tectonic changes.
It may be argued that the end of the unipolar moment that began with the collapse of the USSR, and the increasingly rapid transition toward a bipolar world between the United States and China, condemns this organization to once again navigate the stormy waters of rivalry among the great powers. Undoubtedly, that is one factor.
Others may add that Russia’s political, economic, and military recovery, following its extreme vulnerability during the first decade and a half after the fall of the Berlin Wall, constitutes another ingredient generating tensions and conflicts. The attacks on Georgia in 2008, on Ukraine in 2014, and once again, on a much larger scale, in 2022 are clear examples in this regard.
Israel’s decision, with Washington’s support, to forcefully attempt to derail Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the war in Gaza following the massacre perpetrated by Hamas in October 2023, also stand out on this list. Added to this is the massive increase in global military spending, even in formerly postmodern countries of the European Union, as well as in Japan, where debate has begun over whether it is necessary to possess military nuclear power, with similar echoes in South Korea. Not to mention, moreover, the massacres of Christians in various regions of Africa.
It goes without saying that, as has been known since its creation, the UN does not function if the great powers decide that it should not. International law emanates from power: from wars won and from technological, economic, and military power. Thus it was, thus it is, and thus it will be.
The fathers of realist thought teach us, from Thucydides onward, that human nature and the anarchy of the international system are immutable variables that must be acknowledged in the face of any voluntarist or idealist impulse. This should not be confused with resignation or fatalism, but rather with recognition of the need for prudence, skill, and statesmanlike qualities on the part of decision-makers, especially in an era in which the power of mass destruction abounds.
Icons of realist pessimism, such as Thucydides, Morgenthau, Kennan, Carr, Aron, or Gilpin, remind us that the existence of decision-makers with notable intellectual and human capacities is essential. Beyond good intentions and the structural constraints that make it difficult to do things well, few would include the current UN secretary-general in that category. It would suffice to ask informed audiences what his name is or to search for him as a key protagonist in international news since 2016. The picture would certainly be bleak.
Toward the end of the current year, an important opportunity arises: the selection of a new secretary-general. One must ask how much further the UN’s prestige and influence could continue to fall if someone does not emerge who has clarity about what to do and how to do it; who maintains fluid and respectful dialogue with the world’s principal leaders; and who understands that the world exceeds eight billion human beings, of whom Westerners number fewer than one billion and are in decline.
Someone who understands that the agendas of intense Western minorities, or wokism, matter little or nothing to the vast majority of non-Western societies, a phenomenon that is also present and on the rise within the West itself, as reflected in elections in the United States, Germany, Italy, Hungary, France, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, and other countries. A secretary-general aware that the world does not share the priorities of small progressive urban bourgeoisies from the SoHos of San Francisco, New York, Paris, London, São Paulo, or Buenos Aires, with their traumas and self-flagellations for being white, Western, and for the histories of their countries.
China does not apologize for its past, nor will it. Neither does the American Midwest, nor Russia, nor India, nor Iran, nor Turkey, nor any great civilization. And new Western leaderships seem to align with this trend. Driving while constantly looking in the rearview mirror can be more than dangerous. Argentines know this well.
Among the already officialized candidates, Rafael Grossi stands out, an Argentine diplomat who has held key and highly sensitive positions over recent decades. He has managed to build relationships of respect and trust with the world’s principal leaders and has repeatedly put himself on the line in hotspots such as Ukraine and Iran. He makes dialogue and discretion a constant practice, but in private, and when appropriate, he speaks firmly and clearly. He knows the strengths and weaknesses of the UN.
In other words, the right person in the right place at the right time. If the United States, China, and Russia themselves assume that the UN can still be useful to them in this stormy world, they have in Rafael Grossi the appropriate candidate. Even the most powerful and fearsome states need, from time to time, an institutional space that allows them to cloak themselves in a certain mantle of international legitimacy when they deem it necessary.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Miami Strategic Intelligence Institute (MSI²).