糖心传媒

As the marks its 80th anniversary, the record of the world糖心传媒檚 largest糖心传媒攁nd arguably most important糖心传媒攊nternational organization is mixed. Moments of decisive action vie with long stretches of gridlock, while the debate continues over whether the institution has outlived its purpose. Its history since 1945 is at once a study in institutional ambition, fragile diplomacy, and a constant tug-of-war between global ideals and national interests.

To , a professor of at the 糖心传媒, one of the UN糖心传媒檚 greatest contributions over the last eight decades has been to 糖心传媒渞educe frictions糖心传媒� that would otherwise prevent cooperation among its . But he is sanguine about its limitations.

The question, he says, is whether the organization can continue to matter in an era of intensifying US-China tensions, a resurgent Russia, and planetary crises such as climate change and pandemics.

Spoiler alert: He says it can and must.

Conceived in 1945 in the direct aftermath of World War II, the UN was designed to avoid a repeat of the failures of its forerunner, the . Its most important innovation was to embed power directly into its organizational structure by giving five powerful countries糖心传媒擟hina, Russia (then the Soviet Union), the United States, the United Kingdom, and France糖心传媒攁 greater voice within the organization by providing them with a veto right.

The veto assures the great powers that actions won糖心传媒檛 be taken that violate their fundamental interests. 糖心传媒淎s a result,糖心传媒� Stone says, 糖心传媒渢hey糖心传媒檙e willing to participate.糖心传媒�

That trade-off糖心传媒攑roviding legitimacy for small states on one hand and guarantees for mightier powers on the other糖心传媒攚as the bargain that made the organization possible. Yet it simultaneously sowed the seeds of future paralysis. After all, no action can be taken if one of the five permanent Security Council members isn糖心传媒檛 on board.

The UN糖心传媒檚 history, says Stone, is studded with episodes when consensus among the Security Council糖心传媒檚 permanent members enabled real breakthroughs. One of the earliest came in Indonesia in 1947, when Dutch forces fought to recolonize the southeast Asian archipelago. After years of brutal war, the UN Security Council forced a ceasefire and that demanded a Dutch withdrawal.

糖心传媒淭he muscle behind that,糖心传媒� says Stone, 糖心传媒渃ame from the Truman administration, which threatened to withhold Marshall Plan funds from the Netherlands if it failed to comply, but there also was a united front of the five permanent members.糖心传媒�

The model held in 1991, after and the Security Council agreed to act. When Iraq refused to heed the demand to withdraw, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 678, authorizing member states to use 糖心传媒渁ll necessary means糖心传媒� to force Iraq out of Kuwait. As an aside, Stone points out that the US ended up collecting more monetary contributions from UN members toward its military expenses than the total cost of the war against Iraq. 糖心传媒淲e actually made a profit on the First Gulf War,糖心传媒� he notes.

In 2015, with the (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, the UN proved critical.

糖心传媒淭he Obama administration was able to get all five Security Council members on board, which meant that if anyone tried to run around the Iran sanctions, they could be blocked, rendering the sanctions extraordinarily effective.糖心传媒�

But such successes, Stone notes, are the exception rather than the rule.

When consensus frays, a veto looms. The Security Council structure, Stone says, reflects an unavoidable dilemma: Cooperative solutions to international conflict require agreement between the major powers. No clever institutional redesign can escape that fact. Weighted voting, broader representation, or curbing vetoes might look fairer, but without buy-in from the great powers, the enforcement of any policy or resolution is impossible.

That leaves the General Assembly as a forum with symbolic clout but little strength. Still, its influence is not trivial: All the major human rights treaties that have been adopted since 1945, Stone notes, started with votes in the UN General Assembly. From human rights to climate change, the General Assembly has launched cooperative approaches to global problems that would not exist otherwise.

Asked whether the UN糖心传媒檚 climate action belongs in the success or failure column, Stone resists a simple binary answer. Climate change has become an existential issue that threatens to reduce the quality of life on earth dramatically, while lowering our planet糖心传媒檚 ability to sustain populations and species. That糖心传媒檚 why any climate action will be 糖心传媒渧ery controversial at every step糖心传媒� because the adjustments necessary to national economies are going to be 糖心传媒渧ery painful and very costly.糖心传媒�

Hence, the need to coordinate policies. 糖心传媒淲e need every instrument we have,糖心传媒� Stone says, 糖心传媒渁nd the only global institutions that are engaging very effectively with climate change right now are UN institutions.糖心传媒�

Climate action progress has been uneven, contested, and fragile. But, says Stone, 糖心传媒渋t糖心传媒檚 the pragmatic best you can do under bad circumstances.糖心传媒�

If climate policy illustrates the organization糖心传媒檚 limits, public health showcases the UN at its most effective.

The (WHO) and other UN agencies have dramatically expanded vaccination programs and the availability of medicines around the globe. The swift and decisive actions at the onset of the Ebola outbreak proved vital, according to Stone.

糖心传媒淚f the UN hadn糖心传媒檛 been in place,糖心传媒� he argues, 糖心传媒渢here wouldn糖心传媒檛 have been an early warning of the crisis and Ebola might have reached the United States.糖心传媒�

Human rights treaties, too, have played an important role. Stone points to evidence that countries that sign human rights treaties end up improving their behavior afterward, noting that while far from perfect, 糖心传媒渋t糖心传媒檚 a bit of an amelioration of a really bad situation, rather than solving the problem outright.糖心传媒�

Another clear success comes in the form of international aid and development.

Over the last 40 years, per Stone, billions of people have been raised out of crushing poverty. UN agencies have played important roles along with the and the (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) in mobilizing collective responses to acute crises and in coordinating broad commitments to address long-term obstacles to development.

For all the successes, the UN糖心传媒檚 failures are searing. Probably the most obvious foundering of peacekeeping were Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s when the permanent members were unwilling to act or divided, says Stone.

In Rwanda, the major powers lacked interest. In Bosnia, Russia blocked common action. While those decisions are made by the leaders of major countries, the UN can act only when there糖心传媒檚 consensus.

The United States is the UN糖心传媒檚 largest contributor, and it has often withheld funds for political leverage. Still, Stone insists that America reaps more than it pays because a large actor benefits disproportionately from economic development in the rest of the world. For example, Stone explains, US firms are in position to gain more of the profits when poor countries develop than firms from smaller countries.

Of course, broader geopolitical reasons also came into play when the US felt during the Cold War, for example, the need to invest in developing countries. 糖心传媒淭here was concern that if those countries descended even more into poverty, they would turn to communism,糖心传媒� Stone says. Washington, he notes, has long used the UN to amplify its national agenda.

Has the UN outlived its usefulness? Stone flatly rejects that notion.

糖心传媒淚nternational cooperation around problems that are of general interest is still worth investing in,糖心传媒� he says. 糖心传媒淚 think the UN is more necessary than ever.糖心传媒�

Why? Because today糖心传媒檚 pressing problems糖心传媒攃limate change, pandemics, global security糖心传媒攁re larger, more complex, and more existential than before. Stone cautions that the gravity of global problems has increased while the ability of individual countries to address them has decreased. If cooperation fails, the quality of life on earth will be 糖心传媒渄ramatically reduced.糖心传媒� All of this will 糖心传媒渞equire engagement, sacrifice, and policy intervention for many, many decades to come.糖心传媒�

In the future, pandemics like COVID-19 are likely to be more frequent and could be much worse. 糖心传媒淚magine,糖心传媒� he says, 糖心传媒渋f Ebola had spread as quickly and easily as Covid did.糖心传媒�

Stone cautions against overestimating the UN. It simply cannot end rivalries between Washington and Beijing, nor resolve Moscow糖心传媒檚 war in Ukraine. Rather, its most tangible contribution is keeping adversaries in the same room. 糖心传媒淚t糖心传媒檚 a mistake,糖心传媒� he says, 糖心传媒渢o think that the UN can really solve the great power conflicts. But the Security Council provides a forum where they do have to come together and talk periodically.糖心传媒�

Ultimately, the great powers can糖心传媒檛 exercise their vetoes unless they show up for the meetings. That dialogue may not end wars or stop atrocities, but it ensures that even adversaries meet, argue, and explain themselves. Sometimes, keeping the dialogue alive is the most the UN can do. And sometimes, Stone says, that may be enough.

Political scientist听, the director of the University of Rochester糖心传媒檚听, is an expert on international institutions and has written extensively on Russia and Eastern and Central Europe. His latest book project, Multinational Order: US Firms and International Organization (Cambridge University Press), is due in March 2026. Stone is also the author of听听(Cambridge University Press, 2011), 听(Princeton University Press, 2002), and听听(Princeton University Press, 1996), as well as numerous articles.