Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen,
This year, 2025, is marked by two important anniversaries: the 80th anniversary of the ending of World War II and the 80th Anniversary of the creation of the United Nations. These anniversaries invite serious reflections on the state of the world and efforts to define a vision for the future. Since I have spent much of my political life with the United Nations, including at the organisation’s headquarters in New York - as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs in the years 2000 - 2005, my remarks will address the global picture and the role of the UN.
The year 1945 was, in its own dramatic way, the time of “an end of history.” The World War was ended with the utter defeat of the Axis Powers. The Charter of the United Nations that entered into force later in the year articulated a new vision of the world, based on the concept of universal cooperation among all peaceful states of the world. Peace and security in the new epoch were to be based on the principles of collective security and guaranteed by the United Nations - an ambitious idea, indeed.
The founders of the United Nations were not naïve idealists. The chief initiator among them, the US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, was one of the most experienced and savvy political leaders in the entire history of the US. The first meeting of the United Nations, at that time coalition of states at war with the Axis Powers, was convened in Washington on 1. January 1942, merely three weeks after the US had entered the war. The vision of a different, post-world-war world was started, and the leading role of the United States was established. That role was fully shaped at San Francisco in 1945 – and even before at Bretton Woods in 1944.
The central question of the new system – as of any system of international relations - was the question of peace and security. Compromises were necessary. The United States could not lead alone. The five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council (The US, Soviet, China, France and the United Kingdom) were provided the veto holding power over the most important decisions of the newly established organization.
The Cold war that started in 1947/48, less than three years after the creation of the United Nations lasted for over four decades. The original idea of collective security could not be realised as envisaged in the UN Charter. The bipolarity of the cold war era reduced the role of the UN. But it also helped it to develop new ways of acting – such as the UN peacekeeping. New types of activities were thus developed in such areas as economic development, human rights and protection of environment. The process of decolonization unleashed the energy of the new members who soon became the majority in the UN. Global peace was preserved but with permanent tensions and frequent local and regional armed conflicts. This was by no means an ideal world – but war among the superpowers was avoided.
Then, in 1991, the cold war ended with the collapse of the Soviet. An unprecedented wave of optimism spread all around the world. Again, the sense of “an end of history” emerged – this time most clearly expressed in an article (later a book) by an American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, who suggested that the change into a universal liberal order was irreversible.
It is ironic that this second “end of history” in the 20th Century has not produced any major innovation in the realm of global security or in the international institutional architecture. The Agenda for Peace proposed by the then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1992 and his later Agenda for Development added a number of good ideas to the United Nations literature, but were not followed by new agreements or meaningful action by the United Nations’ Member States.
Very soon history started to return in very visible ways. The UN was unable to meet the expectations in the field of maintenance of peace and security. While the veto was not used, the actual level of cooperation of the great powers needed for effective UN action was lacking. The war in Bosnia (1992-1995) was stopped – not by UN action but – by an energetic diplomatic initiative of the United States that led to the conclusion of the Dayton Peace Agreement in 1995. The fragile and uncertain peace that ensued is still far from being stable and irreversible.
In Africa and in the Middle East a number of armed conflicts persisted. The international community proved to be unable to design effective responses, let alone stable political solutions to a variety of situations affecting international peace and security. The future proved to be more and more uncertain.
The US military action against Iraq in 2003 was the watershed. The US had neither a UN authorization nor a valid reason for attacking Iraq, since Iraq neither had any weapons of mass destruction nor any meaningful connection with international terrorism. Use of force against Iraq was arbitrary. History has finally returned in the form of great power dominance and unbridled use of force.
Today we are witnessing the next phase of this development: War in Ukraine and genocide in Gaza are the current and extreme examples of exercise of power politics. Sometimes we hear pleadings to commitment to what is superficially called “an international rules-based order”. Such pleadings are both weak and vague. There is no real energy behind them. In addition, they fail to describe the “rules” of the “rules-based order” with any clarity: why do they not mention international law? Are the rules of the “rules-based order” different from international law? And if so, how are they different?
Questions like these are typical for our era and they have no clear answers. Moreover, the policies introduced by the current President of the United States defy the very idea of generally applicable rules. Power politics and transactional approaches dominate. We live in uncertain and dangerous time. This is the time that requires maximum attention to and responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. But how should that responsibility be carried out? Four basic propositions come to mind:
First, and most fundamental, each government has the responsibility to maintain stability and security within its own borders and with the immediate neighbours. While this has always been the case, it is particularly important now, in the era of seriously weakened international norms and institutions. Particular care and responsibility are needed so as not to allow transboundary or other bilateral incidents to grow and become unmanageable.
Second, the regional dimensions of international peace and security are more important than before. Today tensions are high in Europe and in North America, once stable and secure regions of the world, while Africa and the Middle East continue to experience different types of violent conflict and political instability. Latin America, while generally quiet, continues to suffer from political instability in parts of the region.
The global security situation poses particular responsibility on Asia, a vast region currently experiencing rapid economic development. Most of the global economic growth is taking place in Asia. Today, no Asian country, no matter how large and powerful, is interested in losing the current momentum. The motivation for peace, stability and growth is most strongly expressed in Asia, which has every reason to be the anchor of global stability and peace. The idea of simultaneous pursuit of competition and cooperation has already taken hold in the relations among most states in Asia. This is an important development that has to be appreciated globally. In addition to its importance in Asia itself, it should also enable ever stronger ties between Asia and other regions of the world. Such a development would have a momentous positive effect on global peace and prosperity.
Third, there is a growing need to develop the mechanisms specifically designed to address international disputes. Regrettably, in the present circumstances, states cannot rely on the role once expected from the United Nations or the World Trade Organization. There is a particular need for effective diplomatic instruments such as mediation and conciliation. While the legal techniques such as arbitration and adjudication have time–tested mechanisms, such as the Permanent Court of International Arbitration and the International Court of Justice, the diplomatic techniques still rely on individual initiatives of states. This situation is not satisfactory. A better organized system of international cooperation for mediation is needed and Asian countries could lead the process towards such a system.
Fourth, there is a need for stronger leadership in the efforts to curb climate change. Here too, Asian countries could play a leading role. Current progress in technology of renewable sources of energy and in development of electric vehicles has already started a transformative change in many Asian countries. These are areas where cooperation with states from other regions and in particular with the member states of the European could be particularly helpful.
Let me conclude.
At this stage, eight decades after the ending of World War II and the creation of the UN the world has to deal with serious dangers and, at the same time, take advantage of the existing opportunities. Prevention of large-scale wars and armed conflicts will remain a permanent need. The existing opportunities for prevention of wars and for new forms of cooperation have to be recognised and vigorously pursued. Asia will have an important role in both of these fundamental tasks.
While the vision of the creators of the United Nations may not be realised in the original form, it can be pursued with a realistic understanding of the current world. This will require a multilateral approach – as it was correctly understood eighty years ago. Commitment to multilateralism will be key to future progress. This does not mean that a fundamental overhaul of the United Nations is possible or indeed necessary at present or in the near future. Changes have to come “from below”. Much can be done through practical development of new models of cooperation that will provide the necessary space for peaceful competition. Multilateral cooperation can be developed in a variety of forms, involving different groups of states in pursuit of a variety of priorities within the global vision of peaceful and sustainable development. Progress at the practical level will guide future policies of the necessary reforms of the global multilateral institutions, including the United Nations.
Does this conclusion offer an adequate answer to the question about the approach to the United Nations at the eightieth anniversary of its creation? I believe it does. Do you?
I thank you for your attention and I look forward to your comments.
