Dan Snow's History Hit - How and Why History: The United Nations at 75

Episode Date: September 16, 2020

In the aftermath of the Second World War, 850 delegates from 50 nations gathered in San Fransisco, determined to establish an organisation which would preserve peace and help build a better world. Over the last 75 years, the UN has committed itself to maintaining international peace and security, and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. But how did the UN come about? How effective has it been in maintaining peace in the world? And where might it have failed? Rob Weinberg asks the big questions about this important development in global affairs with the leading analyst of UN history and politics Professor Thomas Weiss of the City University of New York’s Graduate Center and Distinguished Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.Subscribe to History Hit and you'll get access to hundreds of history documentaries, as well as every single episode of this podcast from the beginning (400 extra episodes). We're running live podcasts on Zoom, we've got weekly quizzes where you can win prizes, and exclusive subscriber only articles. It's the ultimate history package. Just go to historyhit.tv to subscribe. Use code 'pod1' at checkout for your first month free and the following month for just £/€/$1.

Hello everyone, welcome to Dan Snow's History Hit. Yesterday saw the anniversary of the start of the United Nations General Assembly. This is the 75th anniversary of that august body, and so in this episode of History Hit's How and Why History series, we're finding out all about the birth of the UN, its successes and failures over the past three quarters of a century. If you like this episode of How and Why History, our brilliant spin-off podcast, please go and check out its own feed, How and Why History, wherever you get your podcasts. Please subscribe and rate it, all that jazz. If you like this one, of course, there's 30 more episodes to enjoy if you subscribe to History Hit TV. If you go to History Hit TV, if you use the code POD1, P-O-D-1, you do, of course, get a month for free, and then the next month, just one pound, euro, or dollar.

So please go and check that out and there's 30 episodes all up there on History Hit TV. We've got another spin-off podcast which is the World Wars podcast with the brilliant James Rogers please go on there and check that out but in the meantime let's go back to 1945 and the momentous events in San Francisco. Enjoy. In the aftermath of the Second World War, representatives of 80% of the planet's population came together to form the United Nations. 75 years ago, 850 delegates from 50 nations gathered in San Francisco, determined to establish an organisation which would preserve peace and help build a better world. In the chair was Britain's Lord Halifax. And it is now my duty, my honour and my privilege in the chair,

to call for a vote on the approval of the Charter of the United Nations. Nation by nation, the delegates stand up for the great new charter they hammered out together. Fifty nations standing side by side, unanimous for peace. Now, final signing of the charter. China signing first as the first nation attacked in this war. Dr. Wellington Coo's signature topping the long list to come. war. Dr. Wellington Coo's signature topping the long list to come. Then for Russia, Ambassador Gromyko commits his country also to the agreements and objectives decided upon. After days and nights of compromise and cooperation, four main agencies upon which the world now puts

its hope. A powerful security council having final military authority. A General Assembly representing all member nations. A Social and Economic Council to tackle the causes of war. And an International Court to judge any international disputes. Over the last 75 years, the UN has committed itself to maintaining international peace and security and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights. But how did the United Nations come about? How effective has it been in maintaining peace in the world? And where might it have failed? I'm Rob Weinberg, and to help us answer the big questions about this important development in global affairs,

I'm joined by the leading analyst of UN history and politics, Professor Thomas Weiss of the City University of New York's Graduate Center, who's also a distinguished fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. This is How and Why History. So, Tom, thank you for joining me. How did the experience and maybe failure of the League of Nations after the First World War pave the way for the emergence of the United Nations? Actually, most people look upon the failure of the League as a catastrophic end to the first experiment in international organization. But it was actually the beginning. And the things that worked were built upon.

And the things that didn't work were partially avoided in the next iteration after 1945. So even those in Washington and Whitehall who were persuaded that the organization fell flat, their proposal was not to do 1914 minus, but it was actually 1918 plus. And so these experiments were actually very important for what followed. So then the Second World War comes about partly as a result of the failure of the League, the Second World War comes about, partly as a result of the failure of the League, with the reparations being imposed upon Germany and so on, how important were the American President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to the founding principles of the United Nations? Actually, we wouldn't have a United Nations without either of them. So let's say that they were important. What was

interesting, of course, was the signing of the Atlantic Charter by the two of them in August 1941, but that was before the U.S. was in the war. And so interestingly, the principles laid out in there for self-determination, which Winston was not very happy about, but lots of others in terms of keeping the peace and post-war prosperity were laid out. And so, in fact, those principles were reiterated again in a document after the U.S. got into the war, after Pearl Harbor. On the 1st of January, a meeting was held in Washington, D.C., in which a document which was called Declaration by United Nations was signed by 26 allies, including obviously the United States and the United Kingdom. And later, the ally total got up to 47. But those principles from the

Atlantic Charter were reiterated in the Declaration by the United Nations, which actually gave the name to the alliance that actually crushed fascism. But it was also the name given, obviously, to what went on during the war, that is the principles of collaboration across states, and for the institution that would follow, San Francisco. Why were the Soviets included, but France wasn't? France was occupied and not very active in the war, except they're all making a lot of noise in London. The Soviets, after they joined the effort, after having no longer respected the

terms of the non-aggression pact with Germany, which started the war, were obviously a key ally. And in fact, their casualties wereulle's arrogance, became the basis for the Security Council after the signature of the UN Charter in San Francisco in June of 1945. You mentioned there the Atlantic Charter and some of the aspects of the Atlantic Charter that then moved into the UN Declaration. How did they differ? moved into the UN declaration. How did they differ? I wouldn't say that they didn't actually differ, except that by that time, the United States was no longer just financing the reaction to Nazi Germany, but was actually actively involved in fighting the war. But the principles, whether those were, as they say, self-determination, the restoration of self-government to those countries that have been overrun,

the removal of various kinds of trade restrictions, or actually opening the world to trade, which was another reason that we had a Second World War. And importantly, cooperation to guarantee not just peace following the war, but also more stability as a result of economic and social conditions. So that then got topped up by the four freedoms, freedom from fear and want, and the abandonment of force as a way to get one's way. There were lots of things thrown in also about disarmament, which obviously fell a little flat. We're still talking about that. But many of the elements of the Atlantic Charter were reflected word for word almost in the Declaration by United Nations. So the Declaration of United Nations initially was really a way of uniting and taking on the Axis powers in the Second World War. How did it then

grow into the United Nations? Well, you know, there's a funny story about dear Winston being nude, or maybe he had a towel wrapped around him when he was visiting Washington. And Roosevelt came in and he didn't like the term. I think the term was associated nations, which was what Churchill preferred. And Roosevelt said, no, United Nations. And that's the coinage that was then reflected a few days later in the Declaration by United Nations. But thinking about the shape of that institution didn't begin then. It actually began earlier in 1939, even though the United States was not involved in the war. There were planning efforts in the U.S. State Department about what the post-war order would look like, even though the U.S. was not in the war. Roosevelt was looking for ways

to get into the war. He was looking to protect, actually, conscription even, but he was looking ahead. And then subsequently, in particular, the Carnegie Corporation of New York sponsored a whole series of conferences, analyses by academics, looking at the experience of the League and the issues that would be on the table. So planning for the world of 1945 and what became known as the United Nations and the UN system reflected lots and lots of deliberations starting much earlier. So what actually happened then in San Francisco in April 1945? Well, the conference began with Roosevelt enfeebled, but having had conversations with Churchill and Stalin before the conference opened and the nuts and bolts of what became the constitution for the organization

that UN charter were ironed out over a little over two months. The signatures of 50 countries at the end of June, then followed by a period of countries trying to ratify it. And intriguingly, the United States was actually the first country to ratify the treaty or the UN Charter. And then others followed. One needed five permanent members of the Security Council and then half of the others. So as soon as we had the five and then 23 others, the Charter went into force. And so that's what's usually celebrated as the official beginning of the UN, the 24th of October, which is when the charter went into effect. You mentioned the five permanent members of the Security Council. Did the power of veto on behalf of one or more of the permanent members of the Security Council immediately hamper the efficacy

of the UN? Yes, it hampered the efficacy, but we wouldn't have had a UN without the veto. So it's a little difficult to be too categorical about that. Clearly, once the Cold War broke out, which shouldn't take actually very long, the idea that the five would all be on the same wavelength and come to the rescue if there were a conflict, that fell apart so that the veto immediately became an impediment to action. In fact, the Soviet Union, it's close to the first hundred vetoes were actually Soviet vetoes. Subsequently, others have been clamoring to catch up, but for a long time that was what penalized or impeded the UN from being, at least in the security arena, what it was supposed to be. Washington would never have joined without the veto, nor would Moscow. We could argue whether or not London and Paris and Beijing would have gone along with it, but certainly neither the United States nor the Soviet Union would have joined without the veto, which reflected not only their sacrifices, but their position in the world at that time.

the topic of how are we going to reform the Security Council and why do we have these vetoes comes up, and the answers are fairly clear. First of all, it wouldn't be that way without the veto. Second of all, those with vetoes have to agree to get rid of the veto, which is a little difficult. And one of the other pieces of logic in the first iteration was the fact that let's not at least make things worse. I mean, if one of the five decides to get involved in a conflict, the other four are not going to come to the aid of the rest of the international community of the state. So let's not make matters worse, at least. And let's keep the major players in the organization. Now, within three years of the end of the Second World War, the State of Israel was formed. A couple of years later, the Korean War broke out. How important was the UN in both of those

developments? The UN was absolutely critical in 1947 in creating the state of Israel. Actually, the conversation at that time, the United States was really against the creation of the states of Palestine and Israel. They wanted a federation of sorts, but they finally gave in. So the conundrum that we remain in many years later in the Middle East reflects the decision by the UN in actual resolution of 1948. And the Korean War was the first, shall we call it, UN effort at conflict management, using the charter provisions of what are called Chapter 7, the Enforcement of International Peace and Security. It only worked, however, because the Soviet Union was pouting at that point, 1951, China, the new China came on board in 1949. And so Moscow,

someone said, wait a minute, why do we have Chiang Kai-shek and now called Taiwan? That's not China. Why does Taiwan have a veto in the Security Council, blah, blah? So Moscow was actually pouting and boycotting the Security Council at exactly the same moment as the Korean War broke out. So the other four precipitously made a decision about the UN reversing the aggression. It was clearly an aggression. So the UN actually went to war the way the Security Council was supposed to work, although obviously Moscow not being present

facilitated the decision. So the original decision involved UN troops. The continuation of the UN presence thereafter, once the Soviets decided that, wait a minute, this is not such a good idea to leave our seat empty in the Security Council, they came back. And thereafter, one had to use other means, including the General Assembly, to continue the decision to make this a UN operation to the costs, which were mainly borne by the United States anyway. But it started and ended as a UN operation for those reasons. And we had none subsequently until after the Cold War, until after the veto no longer was a problem. The next enforcement action after all those years would have been 1991 and the Persian Gulf War. And at that point, Moscow and the new Beijing went along with the decision to reverse the aggression by Saddam Hussein against Kuwait. The result of the voting is as follows. 12 votes in favor, two votes against, one abstention. Two votes against, one abstention.

The draft resolution has been adopted as Resolution 678-1990. That's the historic vote at the U.N. Security Council authorizing the use of force against Iraq if Iraq does not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15th. The vote included one surprise. The United States had not expected that the government of Yemen would vote against it, but apparently Yemen is an ally of Iraq and apparently came under fairly heavy pressure

to vote against the resolution. Nonetheless, the vote came out approximately the way the United States expected it, 12 votes for, two against and one abstention. Land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. land a Viking longship on island shores, scramble over the dunes of ancient Egypt, and avoid the Poisoner's Cup in Renaissance Florence. Each week on Echoes of History, we uncover the epic stories that inspire Assassin's Creed. We're stepping into feudal Japan in our special series, Chasing Shadows,

where samurai warlords and shinobi spies teach us the tactics and skills needed not only to survive but to conquer whether you're preparing for assassin's creed shadows or fascinated by history and great stories listen to echoes of history a ubisoft podcast brought to you by history hits there are new episodes every week When we think of the United Nations today, we think primarily, I think, of a peacekeeping force. Is Korea the first time that that comes about and how effective has it been? It's important to distinguish peace enforcement without the consent of the parties, which is what happened in Korea or the Persian Gulf, or actually other operations in the 1990s and in this century from peacekeeping, which was an invention of the United Nations. It's colloquially called Chapter 6.5. Chapter 6 in

the UN Charter is the peaceful settlement of disputes. And as I mentioned earlier, chapter seven is the non-Pacific settlement of use using either economic sanctions, judicial sanctions, or military sanctions to reverse aggression. So peacekeeping is somewhere in between. It was invented, some people would argue, with the first observers in the Middle East in Jerusalem in 1948. It's probably more correct to say the invention was at the first UN emergency force after the war of 1957, because these soldiers were not there to physically enforce a decision, but the soldiers were there because the two parties, in this case, Israel and Egypt, wanted a buffer force, wanted some independent monitors to keep them apart.

And so while they're soldiers, they are soldiers of a special kind, soldiers who keep the peace. At that point, they had no real military equipment besides sidearms, not the kinds of things we think about a military having now. Over the years, UN soldiers have become better equipped and they use armored personnel carriers, they use helicopters, et cetera. But at the outset, they were basically just kind of what you folks would have used to call bobbies. I mean, they were there and the legitimacy of their presence was supposed to keep the parties apart. It was not their physical force and their arms. So that's the invention of the UN that began, I would say, in 1957,

but is really quite distinct from military force to overwhelm the enemy and enforce an international decision. Increasingly, we've seen the United Nations shift its emphasis towards goals of economic development and cultural exchange. Why did that attention shift? Well, as you say, this is now, if you were looking at budgetary implications, probably nine-tenths of what goes on has nothing to do with international peace and security, even though international peace and security saves succeeding generations from the scourge of war was the reason the institution was founded. Earlier, we alluded to the Cold War preventing the Security Council from doing what the Security Council was supposed to do. So the organization, one, needed a new emphasis. and the influx between the first new members, Indians and Pakistans in the late 1940s and the early 1960s,

by which time almost the entire planet was decolonized or made independent. Those countries, because they were poverty stricken, they had their own problems. And for them, economic and social development was not only the And for them, economic and social development was not only the basis for peace, if that's the main purpose of the organization, but in and of themselves, it was essential. So the UN really couldn't do much in the security arena except

peacekeeping. And you had both the United Nations itself, with lots of economic and social divisions in it, but then you had the entire set of specialized agencies, whether it's education or agriculture or industry, that were created to improve economic and social development, and that became really the main work of the system as a whole. Do you think that's been the greatest achievement of the United Nations, or have there been others? It's important, I think, to distinguish a couple of products of the UN and the UN system. I would say that there are two big ones, ideational and operational. The idea side, what I'm referring to, is the things that a universal organization does. Big ideas could be the environment, could be women's rights or indigenous peoples. or Syria, development projects, statistical training, that the real legacy, the real power happens to be the ideas, which you pick up, I pick up,

NGOs pick up, some governments do, some governments don't, but that's where the real multiplier effect is. The operations, they're certainly useful. I'm not going to say that delivering tents and food to Syria is a bad idea. But once that's over, it's over. There's very little residual. So I am looking at the products of the UN. You would say that many of the ideas are what's driving government policy these days. It could be inequality.

It could be the nature of women's rights. It could be how do we stop climate change. These go on and on. These were either spawned by the UN or certainly massaged over the years in UN context and operations. And so I think when one hears let's reform the UN, one normally focuses on the operational part. And that's where there are lots of shortcomings, lots of inefficiencies.

So I would see that on the ideational front, there have been a huge number of successes. On the operational side, it's been useful, but there are lots of shortcomings. And that's where most of the money now goes, of course. If you're looking at budgets, probably nine pounds out of 10 are expended on the concrete operational side, whereas I would put many more resources into the ideation side. Now, you've written a number of books looking at how the UN could be updated, reinvigorated in the face of today's populist movements, pandemics, terrorism, and all the other major challenges? Is there a case to be made for reinvigorating, updating the UN? And if so, what would you do? In the face of a global pandemic, with a probably $10 trillion reduction in global GDP, you'd say, do we really have to

make a case for more cooperation across borders? You say, this is crazy. This is cockamamie. But in fact, we do. And so for me, in the face of new nationalisms, new populism, I'm actually putting an emphasis on trying to reinforce the crumbling foundations of the planet we have. Because it's, you know, the age of Trump. But it's not just Trump, it's the age of Putin, it's the age of Xi, it's the age of Erdogan. It's the age of Bolsonaro. And the list goes on. So the very foundations are under attack. And what also is happening is that the global south, the developing countries that came about after decolonization, who were the champions of the UN and the UN system, who benefited from the earliest programs, they are now also increasingly grumbling about the nature of the institutions which were created, as we said earlier, in 1945, brought to you by the major powers, the Western powers, to the benefit of the Western powers. So that global

South, and in particular, the emerging powers in the global South, are also on the bandwagon to change drastically the organization. So my highest priority these days is trying to reinforce what we have, because I dare say that if we tried to recreate what there is, we'd probably get less than we have. And then try to figure out what the UN does better than anyone else on the operational side and on the ideational side. It's clear that certain kinds of standards and norms and treaties, et cetera, have to be universal in order to be effective. But on the operational side, it's clear that many things that the UN does could be done better by others. The UN does not need to be in Brazil. It doesn't need to be in Chile. It doesn't need to be

in China. There's still a UN presence there. It does need to be in countries that are coming back from war or violence that are very poor, where the UN itself provides the range of services that are required. And the UN should be in just to have a number to 40 or 45 countries that are on the bottom of the ladder and shouldn't be anywhere else. It's there that needs to focus more on universal norms and standards. And I dare say what's probably going to happen, although I'm not very popular for this, I dare say that there are going to be a dramatic decrease in funding for the UN and the UN system. It's inevitable. If the public transfer stations system here in Chicago is down by 90% and needs massive subsidies, there are going

to be diminished resources here. There are going to be diminished resources for the UN and the UN system. And I dare say that this kind of financial tightening of the screws could help focus the mind. And the problem is that over the years, the UN system has been very good at adding additional programs, projects, organizations. It has been miserable at getting rid of all of those when they're no longer necessary. And I'd say that that's asking these questions about comparative advantage are what may be driving the institution over the next five to 10 years. Do you despair when you look at the state of the world today? Or do you still have hope in the UN as being a force that could actually affect positive change? Well, after 50 years in the business, I wouldn't be in the business unless I were an inveterate optimist. I mean, I've seen all kinds of indications of improvements, as I say, both on the way we think about issues and the kinds of aid that are brought to people who need it.

So if I were the Secretary General, I'd have some ideas about how to do this. There are obvious political constraints everywhere. But as I say, I think the financial problems are going to force a kind of reckoning that we haven't seen to date. So to take an example that will not make my friends in Paris very happy, UNESCO's funding has been dramatically reduced over the last decade. When the US pulled out, the UK pulled out for a while, Japan's not paying its bills. And the problem with the bureaucracy there is the same problem with bureaucracies everywhere. The easiest thing to do is to get rid of young people and keep those of us who are longer in the tooth around and to cut every program. While we've got 15% fewer resources, let's cut you and you and you,

everyone by the same amount and not say, what is really essential? Where can we really make a difference? Where is the multiplier effect? So there's a chance that this kind of financial stringency would lead the organization to make the kinds of cuts that are necessary. And I hope that will be the case. Professor Thomas Weiss, thank you so much for joining me. that will be the case. Professor Thomas Weiss, thank you so much for joining me. How and why history? you