If the UN says it, must be true
Yesterday, CNN reported that Donald Trump has selected New York Representative Elise Stefanik as the US ambassador to the United Nations (UN). A vocal UN sceptic, her appointment has sparked concerns about potential strains on America’s global relationships. But do not be misled by the UN's humanitarian façade - it is, at its core, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Established in 1945 to prevent another global war, it would not be unreasonable to believe that the UN has been successful in this regard. However, the UN is not what it once was. Beneath the noble mission statements lies a bureaucratic machine plagued by bias, scandal, and inefficiency.
Javier Milei, President of Argentina, even proclaimed at this year’s General Assembly that the UN no longer adheres to its founding principles.
He is not wrong. Not only has the UN shown itself to be inefficient and corrupt, but as with many unelected bodies, it has gradually shifted from being impartial.
Bureaucracies often attract individuals who share certain values. The UN is no exception. Or, as Milei put it, the UN “transformed into a multi-tentacled Leviathan” and “imposes an ideological agenda on its members.”
Despite obvious biases and involvement in disturbing corruption scandals, many continue to take the UN’s word as gospel. This self-sabotaging tendency is a paradigm that must change.
If one was to accept everything the UN says, you could be forgiven for believing that the world’s democracies share a moral parity with the world’s autocracies.
The UN is quick to criticise the West and holds democracies to a higher standard than their authoritarian counterparts. For example, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHCR) has condemned the US for systemic racism and historical injustices against indigenous communities. It has lambasted European countries for their treatment of refugees and for failing to meet climate change targets. Meanwhile, no resolution has been passed in response to China’s treatment of Uyghur Muslims or Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Yemen’s civil war.
It is rich for the UNHCR to claim it promotes and protects human rights while its membership includes some of the most prolific human rights abusers.
If Cuba condemned the UK for our treatment of protestors or our counter-terrorism measures, as the UNHRC has, politicians would simply point to the claimant’s own glass house. Yet under the guise of human rights, countries like Cuba, Pakistan, Qatar, Venezuela, and Russia, to name a few, manipulate the UNHRC as a tool to undermine the West.
As Nikki Haley, Trump's former Ambassador to the UN, pointed out in 2018: “for too long, the UNHRC has been a protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias."
In addition to institutional bias, the UN often finds itself involved in outrageous scandals. UNRWA is one of the most shocking examples. The agency employs predominantly local staff to provide education, healthcare, and aid to Palestinian refugees. But here’s the issue: UNRWA is complicit in the militarisation and indoctrination of Gaza.
UNRWA schools use materials that promote hatred towards Jews and glorify martyrdom and jihad, humanitarian aid has been diverted to build terror infrastructure, and there are documented cases of UNRWA staff having direct links to Hamas. The UN even admitted that nine UNRWA employees “may have” been involved in the October 7th attacks.
This is the tip of the iceberg. UN peacekeepers have been accused of sexual exploitation, torture, and abuse in Haiti, the DRC, the Central African Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, and Somalia.
One could almost look past these transgressions if they maintained peace. In 2006, the UN brokered a ceasefire ending the Israel-Hezbollah war, calling for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon. Despite this, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) subsequently ignored Hezbollah’s military entrenchment. While the UN denies any knowledge, recent images expose UNIFIL posts directly next to Hezbollah tunnels.
The UN allowed Hezbollah to build its military capabilities with impunity.
This corruption is intrinsically linked to the UN’s anti-Israel bias. In just a decade, Yemen’s death toll has climbed to more than 15 times the combined toll of the Israel-Palestine conflict over the past 70+ years. Yet, while Mohammed bin Salman exploits Saudi Arabia's influence to evade condemnation, Article 7 of the UNHRC’s agenda mandates that the council single out Israel at every session – a burden no other member state must bear.
The bias is self-evident. Between 2015 and 2024, the UN General Assembly has adopted 164 resolutions criticising Israel. Over the same time period, it passed only 84 resolutions against all other member states combined. Meanwhile, since 2006, the UNHRC has adopted 108 resolutions against Israel, 44 against Syria, 15 against Iran, 8 against Russia, and 3 against Venezuela.
This is a stark reminder of the UN’s selective human rights standards.
It is time for the West to place its strategic priorities above the agenda of a wannabe supranational organisation. Until the UN is recognised for what it truly is, we will continue to sacrifice our interests to a body that protects human rights abusers while scapegoating liberal democracies.
Ellis Coughlan works in public affairs and communications, drawing on a background in Politics and International Relations from UCL.
