Addressing the U.N. General Assembly last week, Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong sought to make the case for a commitment to multilateral institutions like the United Nations, and for a world where states accept and abide by mutually beneficial rules.
In doing so, Wong was seeking to defend both a system and a worldview that have come under considerable stress. With Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing and escalating crisis in the Middle East, as well as appalling campaigns of violence in Sudan and Myanmar, Wong highlighted that there is currently more conflict than at any time since the end of World War II. She noted with distress that “such entrenched violence has its own gravity: more violence becomes the path of least resistance.”
But it is not only a new period of widespread violence that the global community is currently seeking to negotiate; it is also an era of wholesale and relentless cynicism and a lack of trust – both within zones of conflict as well as in nations at peace. There is a prevailing sense that rules and norms are ineffectual at best, or for suckers at worst; that institutions are being exploited, or existed simply for the purpose of exploitation. There’s been a global retreat into myopia and zero-sum thinking.
Institutions like the United Nations are never perfect, but it is the best tool we have for advancing the cause of humanity in all its great diversity of interests and range of powerful competing forces. Its purpose is compromise, to muddle through, to make it through the day by minimizing problems and seeking to do likewise tomorrow. As Wong stated, the U.N.’s objective is “not… taking us to heaven, but saving us from hell.”
This isn’t a perspective easily comprehended by those whose political approaches are defined by suspicion, fervor, and force; or those who see the world solely through the advancement of their own personal or group narrow interests; or those who believe in perfect outcomes, who grow ever more suspicious and conspiratorial when these perfect outcomes never materialize. It is almost weekly that the streets of Australia’s major cities are overrun with people whose passionate intensity and expectations are at odds with the Australian government’s ability to actually influence global events.
Wong’s speech at the U.N. laid out what Australia can actually do. She illustrated how Australia’s position had shifted on the conflict between Israel and Hamas – from initial support for Israel after Hamas’ brutal terrorist attack to the urging of a ceasefire and that Israel abide by international law, cautioning that Lebanon cannot become the next Gaza. This is unsatisfying for many. Institutional pressure may be effective, or it may not be. But a world without institutions to enact pressure through is likely to be one of starker brutality and graver injustices.
Impunity and shamelessness have become dominant features of both global and domestic politics. Once these forces are unleashed, they tend to encourage others to mimic this behavior, exacerbating the problem an institution like the U.N. has in seeking to promote rules and norms. The more states push boundaries, the more international institutions lose their credibility. Yet cynicism toward institutions that seek at least some forms of restraint and accountability only provides fertile soil for those who wish to break rules and transcend norms entirely.
As Wong stated, “these rules always matter – never more so than in times of conflict – when they help guide us out of darkness, back toward light.”
Of course, no state is entirely pure of heart and acts on good faith on issues of humanitarian importance at all times. But this is not the yardstick that countries and institutions should be measured by. There will always be conflicts of interests within the international system; there will always be forces that pull states away from the noblest of ideals and intentions. But it is the commitment to turn up, be counted, submit to scrutiny, and work with others and within constraints that is essential.
Institutions like the U.N. need these commitments from as many states as possible in order to be effective. Wong’s speech sought to set this example. She acknowledged those “who built this U.N. system to confine horrors of the past to history, and to give us a better life.” As imperfect as the system is, Wong argued, “We have no option and no excuse but to find a way through our challenges today, immense and intractable as they are.”