“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
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?
ReplyDeleteLike 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.
DeleteJennifer,
ReplyDeleteI 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.