The ineffectiveness of multilateral organizations in the face of institutional collapse and external intervention
14ymedio, Federico Hernández Aguilar, San Salvador, 3 January 2025 — The new year began with Venezuela cornered by the United States military presence. Finally, in the early hours of January 3, Nicolás Maduro and his wife were extracted from Caracas. The political and social situation in the South American country had become so manifestly undefendable—a diagnosis also applicable to Cuba and Nicaragua—that US intervention appeared to be the only viable solution. Out of a sense of historical responsibility, however, it is worth asking ourselves why this extreme scenario came to pass.
The threat of one nation against another violates one of the basic principles of international law: non-interference. No country should feel justified in interfering in another’s affairs. Both the Charter of the United Nations (UN) and that of the Organization of American States (OAS) establish “non-intervention in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states” as a pillar of peaceful coexistence.
Although both documents acknowledge this principle, neither of the two declares it to be absolute. It admits the existence of valid reasons for interference in the domestic affairs of a nation, provided that the intervention is carried out by a multilateral organized force whose criteria must prove these reasons: real dangers to peace, the defense of a country under attack, and when a state has demonstrated its inability to protect its own people from monumental crimes.
Since the creation of the UN, hundreds of armed conflicts have broken out around the world.
According to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council is the body charged with “taking the initiative” in all matters concerning the pursuit and maintenance of world peace. If the organization were successful in this mission—the very purpose for which it was created, let us not forget—fraternity and cooperation would be the defining characteristics of international relations, and preventive diplomacy would always be at the forefront of addressing any hint of conflict.
Historical reality has proven quite different. Since the creation of the UN in October 1945, hundreds of armed conflicts have erupted around the globe. In fact, according to the most recent edition of the Global Peace Index, there are currently 59 active state conflicts, “the highest number since the end of World War II.” Furthermore, the rate of peaceful resolution of these conflicts is lower than at any other time in the last half-century.
The internationalization of disputes has also grown exponentially. At least 78 countries are currently involved in tensions that transcend their territorial borders, and a total of 106 nations have increased their military capabilities. In 1970, only six countries possessed substantial influence over other states, while now that number has risen to 34. The fragmentation of global power has not only weakened good neighborliness but has also demolished it.
The UN’s evident failure stems from many factors, beginning with the veto power held within the Security Council, even by those countries that carry out acts of aggression against others. Russia, for example, blocks any resolution on the war in Ukraine; the United States obstructs any decision on the conflict in Gaza; and China typically defends the interests of its allies. Why do these three states possess such power? Because, along with the United Kingdom and France, they were the victorious nations of the last major war, securing for themselves a permanent seat on the Council. To make matters worse, the non-permanent members of this body have included Gaddafi’s Libya, Musharraf’s Pakistan, Al-Bashir’s Sudan, and Mubarak’s Egypt.
The UN could have been far more effective if the veto system between major powers had an intelligent technical counterpart. But that is not the case either. For decades, the organization has been promoting and imposing large-scale “progressive” agendas, causing more divisions than necessary and fueling a multilateral bureaucracy that never provides a clear accounting of its work. The OAS operates with very similar limitations, unable to achieve the two-thirds majority needed in its Permanent Council to properly implement its Democratic Charter (another shining example of a worthless document).
The organization has spent decades promoting and imposing “progressive” agendas on a large scale.
In consequence, lacking a global organization with sufficient authority — operational, legal and moral — to manage conflicts, authoritarian leaders feel free to intimidate their own people or to attack neighboring countries. Thus, we see Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro establishing a 25-year dictatorship in Venezuela, or Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine, all under a cloak of impunity.
The encirclement of the Maduro regime by the US military would have been unnecessary if a supranational entity existed with the capacity to act promptly against tyrannies, with defined criteria, concrete actions, and well-defined limits. But in the chaotic landscape of humanity, when those who should guarantee peace and individual rights display their exhaustion and venality, it is difficult to expect change to occur without upheavals.
This is not about absolving any leader or nation of responsibility, but about exposing the damage caused by the absence of objective and viable consensus around the eternal challenge of peace.
____________
COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.
