The United Nations, as one of the core components of the international order, born after the Second world war (WWII), is reaching its 80th year. This anniversary comes in quite turbulent times for the organization. As highlighted by the New Agenda for Peace of the UN Secretary General, “a transition is under way to a new global order”, marked, inter alia, by “a loss of trust between the global North and South”. Nevertheless, this historical moment may constitute an opportunity for a debate on the past, the present and future of the current international order.
The dominant western narrative on the post-WWII international “liberal” order, especially after the euphoric period following the end of the Cold war, lets too little place for the rest of the world. Such a narrative has to be nuanced. No one can deny, in fact, the role of the Allies during and after WWII, in shaping the international state system. It was, in reality, a global common project, particularly in its implementation, owner-ship and further development. The constitutive role of the Third World, had been sidelined.
It is worth reminding that the decisive military victory of the Allies in WWII, was also due to the sacrifices made by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of African, Asian and Latin American soldiers. They came from colonies of Great Britain and France, or were enrolled in the US Army as “non-citizens”. They maintained, in a way, while fighting, their own identity, like the British Indian Army, and the Arab Legion within the British Army, or the Tirailleurs Sénégalais in the French Armed forces. Their contribution didn’t receive the recognition it deserves, as coming from communities seeking emancipation, and not only on an individual, or narrow ethnic basis. Unless to consider those soldiers as mercenaries, or to deny them any kind of wider communal identity, their contribution should be taken into account in a convenient way. They had indeed a common identity: as belonging to colonized nations, known later as Third World or Non-Aligned countries, for most of them, after the Bandung Conference in 1955. The Global South could be considered justly as the legitimate inheritor of that international group of states. The fight of those soldiers with the Allied armies occurred in an international context characterized by new dynamics within national liberation movements throughout the world, encouraged by tacit or explicit promises of independence, as already formulated in the Atlantic Charter of August 1941. They had helped, either directly or indirectly, to boost the independence process of their countries. An agreement on self-determination for colonies, had been made during the Teheran Conference in 1943, especially between the emerging two great powers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the majority among the fifty-one founding members of the UN, almost the two thirds, were from the Third World. Given their number, the entry into force of the UN Charter depended on them. They were engaged, enthusiastic stakeholders of this historically unprecedented global institution, symbol of a new world, full of hope for freedom, justice and prosperity. Therefore, the post-WWII international order might be understood as the result of a “Holy Alliance” between the West, the East and the South. This may explain the appropriation process of the international order among formerly colonized nations, since it was perceived as a global project, based on universal principles, like self-determination, racial equality and Human Rights.
The colonial vision of the world before WWII, from a cultural point of view, had, among other features, a sharp distinction between “civilized” and “primitive” nations. Worth reminding thatthe racial equality principle had been rejected by the League of Nations. WWII revealed that not all of the “civilized” were civilized enough and that the “primitives” were not more “primitive” than the rest. Racial equality emerged, after the war, as a universally prevailing ethical and legal norm.
The Non-Aligned movement, mainly during the Cold War, had a balancing function, somewhat like a hidden “King-maker”, notably within the UN. It was a much-courted group, both by the East and the West. The states of the Non-Aligned Movement played also a role in preserving peace during the Cold War. In addition, they helped to put pressure on both Blocks in order to make substantial contributions for “international development”. One of the most known outcomes of those efforts, unfortunately not anymore on the agenda, was the UN Resolution calling upon developed countries to spend 0.7 percent of the Gross National Income for official development assistance.
The socialization process, within international institutions, was universal and inclusive, in which the South countries played a major role. Principles of international law, even if not always respected, represented unquestionable rules for international behavior. The Global South countries had helped to create a common ground, not only for norms and values, but also for a global culture. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), as one of the most active UN institutions, at least in the beginning, had a very ambitious aim. Its action was underpinned by a shared conviction on the unity of the human civilization.
It is may be time to recognize the role of the Third World, in shaping the international order, as a community of countries, in its own right. This can help revive the universalistic spirit which was at the origin of UN’s inception. It can also give impetus to the common ownership of international institutions and reanimate the original ethos of the UN Charter, which was practically a Global social contract, made through a historical compromise with a promising, progressive perspective.
The biggest challenge to the UN, may not the ability to stop wars, but the highly dangerous potential international divide on already defined “breaches of peace”, like wars of aggression, war crimes and genocides. Any ambiguity or double standards on such issues can only be disastrous.
The growing global existential threats like nuclear weapons, arms race, climate change, pandemics and artificial intelligence, or even the unprecedented level of global debt, may hopefully help raise awareness for an urgent common action. But there is indeed a dilemma in the current situation: whereas the world is desperately in need for multilateral initiatives, global institutions are facing an unprecedented crisis.
One of the major achievements of multilateral institutions, and hopefully the most lasting one, is to have drawn attention to the fact that legitimate national interest of states should not necessarily be preserved at the expense of the Global common interest, even when this notion is not always obvious for everyone. Competition between states may not disappear in the near future. Worth noting, however, that states behavior is probably much more complex than what state-centered IR doctrines teach us.
If the central aim of the UN was famously “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”, it seems that such an institution is still needed, probably more than ever. The alternative would be a dangerous gambling with a nightmarish future, or an illusory return to old practices. The majority of states, represented by the Global South, if given a chance, may be able to help find a way to a smooth transition towards a new global order, within a spirit of regained trust, common values and shared responsibilities.
