As the United Nations marks its 81st year, questions over its ability to uphold international law, resolve conflicts and translate global commitments into action have grown harder to ignore. Its work depends, in large part, on the willingness of member states to act on the promises they make. For countries caught in conflict, the consequences of that dependence can be devastating, with humanitarian crises often outlasting efforts to secure peace.
In an interview with EdexLive, Ambassador TS Tirumurti, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN from 2020 to 2022 and President of the UN Security Council in August 2021, discusses the limits of the organisation’s authority, the shortcomings of international peacebuilding, India’s development partnerships and the role young people can play in reshaping the global order.
In your experience at the UN, what determines whether an international commitment to UN resolutions translates into action by national governments? Why do some commitments gain traction while others do not?
As you know, the United Nations Security Council’s (UNSC) mandate is focused on threat to international peace and security, some of which can be enforced under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) is a universal forum which approves resolutions on a variety of issues, but are not enforceable. Therefore, while UNGA resolutions are an important indication of what member states agree on, translating into action depends entirely on the respective governments and their willingness and capacity.
However, the UNGA can also set norms for state behaviour by taking decisions. These have led to new instruments and conventions and also institutions and mechanisms. There are many examples of this like International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Criminal Court (ICC), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), International Seabed Authority (ISA), Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) etc. These are legally binding on those who subscribe to them.
The UN relies on its member states to turn shared commitments into action. What leverage does it truly have when governments are unwilling to act or fall short of their commitments?
Let me say that when the major powers are fighting wars and conflicts outside the UN, you would hardly expect them to come to the UNSC to find peace. So, we need to be realistic about what the UNSC can do and what it cannot.
That said, the UNSC has a range of options to make governments of countries to act as per the UNSC decisions. They primarily fall under what is called Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN charter. Broadly speaking, Chapter VI emphasises peaceful settlement and Chapter VII empowers the Council to take enforcement action in case of war, conflicts etc. It’s difficult to get consensus these days to use coercive powers since there is, rightly, a feeling that it has been used mostly against countries of the Global South, especially Africa, and has been used arbitrarily.
The range of options available to the Council short of coercive action include negotiations, mediation or arbitration, appointing special envoys, use of Secretary General's good offices, sanctioning of individuals etc. UN Peacekeeping forces are also sent to such conflict areas. As you may know, India is the largest contributor of UN peacekeepers and, tragically, have also had the largest number of martyrs for UN cause.
In recent years, unilateral use of military action without prior authorisation or in disregard of UN Security Council is being resorted to. Examples include Syrian interventions, Iran war 2026, Lebanon war 2024-2025 and a bit earlier – the Iraq war led by a US-led coalition in 2003, war against Yugoslavia led by NATO in 1999 etc. Further, unilateral sanctions are being resorted to routinely to punish countries. Needless to add, all this has broken the back of international law and rules.
When armed conflict or humanitarian crises disrupt a country's development, how can the UN and international cooperation address immediate humanitarian needs while also protecting the long-term prospects of affected populations?
Over the years, the UN has been successful in coordinating humanitarian assistance to countries in distress and in conflict. For example, when Taliban took over power in August 2021, the UNSC granted a special waiver for its own sanctions against Taliban in order to enable humanitarian aid to be distributed to the Afghan people so that sanctions on the government do not affect the people. This has been adopted for other countries also.
That said, this has also exposed a serious lacuna. That is the increasing inability of the UNSC to ensure peace settlement of conflicts through political negotiations and the increasing use of military force to try and resolve differences. Donor fatigue sets in. The criticism is that instead of resolving conflicts peacefully, the UN has merely become a humanitarian organisation.
While humanitarian aid deals with some of the basic and immediate needs of the population in distress, long-term prospect of protecting population is a far more complex issue which involves both the reconstruction of the physical infrastructure and putting in place institutional structures by empowering the national authorities. I don’t think UN Peacebuilding efforts has been effective in this context.
You have spent considerable time and effort working on development-partnerships between India and other countries. What makes such partnerships effective/deliver tangible results?
Yes, I have dealt with India’s development partnership at various levels during my career, especially with our neighbours as well as with Africa. Development partnership is a concrete and visible manifestation of India’s desire to help other countries in the Global South. It includes a combination of grants, lines of credit, education and training, technical assistance, humanitarian aid etc and encompass a wide range of projects from huge dams to small impact projects at the grassroots level. Our ITEC programme is one of the most successful technical and training programme for the Global South.
While our lines of credit are now more than $32 billion, our terms of credit can compare with the best in the world and the model we adopt is one of the most friendly and demand driven. In simple terms, it is putting our money where our mouth is. In international relations as in life, credibility comes when words are backed by deeds and commitments by the willingness to act. India’s development partnership has made a huge difference to our relations with the Global South.
What advice would you give young people who want / expect international institutions to respond more effectively to any issues affecting their generation?
The younger generation should take advantage of the huge disruptions to the global order, whether geopolitical or economic or technology, and strive to build something better and more meaningful. They have more tools at their command, especially technology, than ever before to effect change. No point in repeating or amplifying the mistakes of the past like in making the planet unsustainable or in letting technology like AI dehumanise humans and disrupt lives. Fortunately, the younger generation are not willing to accept stereotypes of the past – as we are seeing the change in attitude among the American youth vis-à-vis Israel and Palestinians – and they are ready to express their views.
Education is often disrupted by armed conflict, displacement and humanitarian emergencies. How does the UN address issues of children and education in such conflicts?
Education has always received high priority in the UN system. The UN General Assembly created the mandate of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) for Children and Armed Conflict in 1996. In 1999, the UNSC formally placed the issue on its agenda. They also have UNSC’s Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict, monitoring and reporting mechanisms, UNSG’s annual report etc.
In fact, interestingly India was featured in UNSG’s annual report on this subject for 12 years between 2010-2022. It was during my time as Permanent Representative to the UN in New York that we worked closely with the UN officials and after a collaborative exercise, had India removed from the report in June 2023.
About Ambassador TS Tirumurti
He the Ambassador/Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, New York from 2020-2022 and was also the President of the UN Security Council in August 2021.
He is currently Chair, Steering Committee of the Deccan Centre for International relations, Chennai.