On the eve of the annual meetings of the United Nations General Assembly, I cannot say for certain why everyone has begun recalling the fate of the League of Nations (1920-1946), an organization that was surrounded by great hopes in the aftermath of the First World War. Its charter, adopted in Paris in 1920, stated that it had been established “to prevent wars, resolve disputes among states through peaceful means, and promote international cooperation.”
Of course, invoking this history may seem like a case of “stating the obvious,” as everyone is aware of the crises the United Nations has faced in recent years. Similar crises led to the demise of the League of Nations.
In reality, the League's activity declined sharply in the 1930s after it proved unable to prevent Japan's expansion into Chinese territory or Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. Above all, how could it have stopped Adolf Hitler from igniting the Second World War through aggression against Czechoslovakia and Poland and the annexation of Austria?
Despite the immense devastation caused by World War II, the League of Nations, which had failed to prevent wars and resolve international crises, was not formally dissolved until a replacement was established.
The victorious Western powers believed the new organization would succeed where the League had failed. Thus, the United Nations was founded, with the Security Council tasked with resolving crises and preventing wars. It was supplemented by commissions and agencies dealing with economic, social, and health affairs, as well as organizations dedicated to human rights, women, children, mothers, and environmental issues. These significant achievements did not occur at once; rather, they evolved gradually from 1945 through the 1990s.
The Security Council, rather than the General Assembly, came under the influence of the two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. During the 1950s and 1960s, however, the United States and its allies often held the upper hand.
The Soviet Union was able to gain influence and achieve balance within the General Assembly thanks to the membership of newly decolonized states, many of which had received Soviet support both before and after independence.
One distinguishing feature of the Cold War era (1947-1990) was a period in the 1960s and 1970s known as détente, during which agreements were reached on various issues related to international relations, particularly in Europe.
Yet the most positive aspect of the era as a whole was the work carried out by UN agencies and commissions in agriculture, nutrition, global health, and refugee assistance across what was then called the Third World.
The Soviet Union did not oppose these humanitarian, developmental, and specialized programs funded by the United States, Western countries, Japan, and Canada. It simply preferred direct engagement rather than working through the UN and its agencies. Despite their shortcomings, these achievements became a major source of Western "soft power" in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
I believe the situation began to change in 1979 when Soviet forces intervened in Afghanistan. Shortly thereafter, Ronald Reagan threatened the Soviet Union with the "Star Wars" program. The United States also forged an alliance with the Vatican, under Pope John Paul II of Polish origin, and with Islamic movements to wage what was portrayed as a war of faith and freedom against the Soviet Union.
As the Soviet Union collapsed, President George H. W. Bush was calling for a new world order founded on free-market economics and American predominance.
Having lost its bloc and allies, Russia required nearly two decades to restore internal stability before beginning a series of assertive moves, from Georgia in 2008 to Crimea in 2014 and, most significantly, the large-scale war in Ukraine beginning in 2022. Nor did it stop there; it also intervened in Sudan, Libya, and several African countries.
Russia paid little attention to condemnations issued by the Security Council. At first glance, President Donald Trump, during his first term, appeared willing to align with Putin's Russia at Europe's expense. He also threatened to withdraw from NATO and insisted that Europe should pay for its own protection.
In his second term, Trump launched wars against Iran, seized Venezuela, or at least sought control of its oil, and intensified pressure on Cuba in an effort to bring down its government.
His calls for peace have gone hand in hand with efforts to dominate those who seek it.
Meanwhile, Russia seeks to restore its former Soviet-era glory.
Neither power pays much attention to the United Nations or its resolutions. Before arriving in New York to deliver his annual address, Trump announced the US withdrawal from the Human Rights Council, an institution America itself had helped establish. In his speech to the United Nations, he also urged countries to withdraw from the International Criminal Court.
American and Russian military forces now operate freely in many places without authorization or legal mandate. China appears ready to follow a similar path. Small wars are spreading across the globe with little serious concern from the world's major powers.
Will the United Nations ultimately share the fate of the League of Nations?
Weakness, disorder, and bullying are likely to persist. Yet the United Nations is unlikely to disappear, because the major powers cannot agree on a replacement. As for smaller and middle-ranking states, they find it difficult to give up the forum through which they voice their grievances.
