As world leaders attend the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week, there is a chorus of criticisms about the organisation’s failures and limitations. From the inability to sanction Israel amid its genocidal campaign against the Palestinian people, to the failure to condemn the United States’ illegal bombing of Iran or to respond effectively to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the UN has appeared increasingly constrained in recent years. The veto system of the UN Security Council, by which the five permanent members (China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) can effectively bypass any oversight of their activities, has meant that the Security Council has not intervened in world crises in any meaningful way since the end of the Cold War.
And yet, despite these limitations and external attacks, there are bodies of the UN that still play a significant role in world politics. Given the paralysis of the Security Council and the shifting dynamics across the Global North and South, as small and middle powers gain more ground, the General Assembly is steadily rising in prominence as a place where politics doesn’t always trump policy. The UNGA is comprised of 193 member states, each with an equal vote.
This nominally even playing field means that lobbying for votes is intense and the horse-trading between states has shifted the dynamics on crucial questions at key moments. Given its representative nature, the UNGA has traditionally played a very important, if overlooked, role in defining the UN’s work. Since 1960, Global South states have held a numerical majority in the assembly, which has allowed this group of states to set the agenda for issues that are discussed and to play a pivotal role in the political dynamics of the forum.
The collective agency of this disparate group of states – from small island members such as Jamaica to large states such as Brazil and India – has ebbed and flowed through various formations, from the Afro-Asian bloc to the Group of Seventy-Seven (G77). Their collective power has been considerable in moulding the economic and social development system and pushing forward a human rights agenda. For example, the proposal to create the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was led by Costa Rica in the General Assembly in 1965.
Although the role was not officially created until 1993, the resolution provided the pathway towards institutional change, and importantly, put human rights at the centre of the agenda. In this way, much of the General Assembly’s work has been gradually generated towards specific gains in the area of decolonisation, self-determination and inequality, reflective of the bonds of solidarity that hold different Global South states together, but also of the longer and wider arc of commitment to addressing global inequality and injustice. It is in this light that the real potential of the General Assembly as a barometer that offers a reading of the position of the international community on various issues becomes clear.
This is a dual-sided function, reflecting the general views of the majority of member states on a range of issues, as well as the global public opinion. This was most evident recently in the resolutions passed condemning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and its obstruction of aid delivery. The unprecedented number of votes in favour reflected not just the political will of the states involved to sanction the Israeli government, but the wider outrage among the general public at the appalling slaughter taking place.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
