Sunday, November 9, 2014

“What was that?” Andy Samberg asks in a fake speech to the UN General Assembly in 2010 SNL Digital Short. The video is silly and ridiculous. Samberg poses an awkward high school student who breaks out into song and dance while he disapprovingly asks world leaders to explain humanitarian atrocities. Despite its comedic purposes, the video actually raises a valid concern: does the UNGA serve its purpose? As an international organization, the United Nations aims to facilitate cooperation amongst nations. Yet it repeatedly fails to be effective. Because of its nature, it is dominated by more developed nations and therefore produces little change. However, there is one purpose that the UN General Assembly actually fulfills: it increases information.
There are several factors that influence the UN’s effectiveness. As the video proposes, the UNGA does not make efficient use of their time. Its size impedes cooperation, making it difficult to reach an agreement with over 190 members. Additionally each member has the ability to address the assembly. Despite each member nation having an equal vote, the agenda is typically set and controlled by stronger, more developed nations. In addition, the official agenda is usually overshadowed by current global crises so the scope of debate is limited to more visible broader issues. Furthermore, its resolutions are non-binding so they ultimately have little effect even when there is overwhelming support. For instance, the UNGA passed the twenty-third resolution to end the US embargo on Cuba this past September and despite the support from more than 90% the resolution had zero effect.
However, some would argue that the UNGA’s structure is actually better for facilitating cooperation. While the resolutions hold no barring on member nations, they are, in fact, important to international actors because they indicate a member state’s position on a given issue. Increased information helps facilitate cooperation among states because Speeches are another important function in the UNGA. Like resolutions, speeches can be an indicator of a state’s position, increasing one state’s knowledge of another’s position, but speeches can also increase public information. This can help raise awareness of an issue or cause. Emma Watson’s speech on feminism garnered huge international praise and helped launch UN Women’s HeForShe campaign.
Furthermore it should be noted that while a large membership would be a disadvantage during debate, it provides a wider range of perspectives and increases the likelihood a policy would be effective by implementing it on a larger scale. Powerful nations help provide legitimacy to an agreement and economic support. While binding agreements enforce change, non-binding agreements are easier to pass and states overall are more accepting of them.

In conclusion, the UN General Assembly has the ability to be effective and can, at times, facilitate cooperation through its various functions; however, it best serves its purpose as a platform to increase information both to international actors and the public at large. Increased information leads to better cooperation among states and an increased attention for prominent world issues.
http://www.thelonelyisland.com/video/what-was-that

3 comments:

  1. Interesting! Theoretically if the resolutions WERE binding, do you think it would be helpful or hurtful? Do you think that a smaller group of states could achieve more impressive results?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like we discussed in section, I think binding agreements are helpful depending on the situation. Certain actions need to be enforced immediately such as environmental actions. Biding actions could be detrimental if they are actions widely contested in the international community, both non-binding and bonding agreements may be ignored.

      Delete
  2. Jennifer,
    I think you make a really interesting argument here, especially with the use of your video because it's obviously humorous but is one that makes you actually think. I agree with you that the UN's best function is based on information. I wonder how they could more effectively make decisions or if there is even a good alternative to the current set up? I feel like the security council is a good example of a smaller general assembly and they are not necessarily any more effective.

    ReplyDelete