Why the UN General Assembly still matters

Richard Gowan, Director of UN and Multilateral Diplomacy at the International Crisis Group in New York, has spent years studying the organization – both the bad and the ugly.

Ahead of the General Assembly’s high-level week, he sat down with UN News to discuss why the Assembly remains an important platform for international diplomacy – and why, despite a changing and divisive world, its role remains vital.

UN News: Take us back to 1945, when the UN was created after the Second World War. What did the founders hope the General Assembly would become?

Richard Gowan: I think the founders of the UN assumed that Security Council would be the center of most decision making in 1945. But once the UN began work, the major powers were in Security Council became divided very quickly, and suddenly much of the political discussion moved to the General Assembly.

If we go back to the 1940s and early 1950s, it was the General Assembly that really drove many of the decisions around the Palestinian issue, Korea, rather than the Security Council, which was often paralyzed by Cold War tensions.

UN News: As tensions rise between the United States and the Soviet Union, how will the General Assembly function in an increasingly divided world?

Richard Gowan: If we go back to the 1940s and 1950s, most of the countries in the General Assembly were friends and allies of the United States, so when the Security Council was deadlocked between America and the Soviet Union, America often asked the General Assembly for support.

When it was impossible to discuss the Korean War in the Security Council, the General Assembly led discussions on what to do about Korea.

A major test for the General Assembly came in 1956, when two crises occurred simultaneously, one at Suez, in which Britain and France intervened, and another over the Soviet invasion of Hungary. It was a very dramatic time, and it was the Assembly that mandated the first thing [military] UN peacekeeping operation to help end the Suez crisis, which was one of its greatest contributions to crisis management throughout the Cold War.

UN News: When newly independent states joined the UN in the 1960s, how did expanded membership change the General Assembly, its priorities and debates?

Richard Gowan: The growth of the General Assembly in the 1960s was not something the UN founders had envisioned. I think they believe that the maximum number of General Assemblies might be 80 or 90 countries.

The General Assembly is a place where newly independent countries can voice their opinions. And in the 1960s, we began to see the General Assembly focus on an issue of great importance to many former colonies – apartheid in South Africa.

And throughout the 1960s, the General Assembly passed a series of resolutions condemning apartheid. And finally in the 1970s, the General Assembly suspended membership in apartheid South Africa, and this was a sign of how what we now call the Global South really emerged as a force in the General Assembly.

UN News: As developing countries become more organized and influential in the General Assembly, how are they changing the issues the UN focuses on?

Richard Gowan: Developing countries wanted to use the General Assembly as a space to discuss apartheid in South Africa, to discuss some of the colonial crises that occurred recently, such as the existence of the Portuguese Empire in Africa; to talk about Palestine, which became more of a focus in the 1970s.

But developing countries also want to talk about what they see as a deeply unfair global economic order. And in 1974, the General Assembly passed a resolution calling for a new, fairer economic order for developing countries. And this began very rigorous diplomacy, which took place throughout the 1970s and 1980s regarding the injustices of the global economic system.

UN News: Do you feel they are changing global politics outside the UN?

Richard Gowan: The General Assembly during the Cold War was the main platform for countries emerging from colonialism to assert themselves on the world stage, and I think the campaign against apartheid in the General Assembly did have a big impact and contributed to the collapse of apartheid in the early 1990s.

I think without the assembly, most UN member states would not have a say in many global affairs. We did get a new international economic order that is fairer for southern countries, but without it, many countries would have no global voice at all.

UN News: The end of the Cold War brings new optimism to international cooperation. How does the assembly respond to this new era, and what opportunities arise for the UN in particular?

Richard Gowan: The post-Cold War decades were a period in which diplomats were able to put aside their ideological differences and talk more constructively about how to strengthen the UN system.

During the Cold War, diplomats from the communist bloc would not talk to their counterparts from Western countries unless they absolutely had to.

There is a new spirit of communication and cooperation, and you have ambassadors working with the UN Secretariat to develop new ideas passed through the General Assembly on how to develop new UN bodies, such as the Peacebuilding Commission, approved in 2005.

UN News: As globalization accelerates in the new millennium, the UN faces new economic, environmental and political challenges. Looking back on the 2000s, which debate or decision do you think most defined the role of the General Assembly?

Richard Gowan: I think there was a shock to the session with the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009. Many UN members felt that the UN had to respond to the financial crisis.

But instead, the US and other major countries decided to work through the G20. And in that period, there was a lot of criticism from Global South countries. But it is also important to remember that this is a period when we are starting to see more discussions around the environment, around the need to protect the planet Earth starting to be discussed through the General Assembly and other UN forums.

UN News: If you spoke to the founders of the UN in 1945, what do you think would surprise them most about today’s General Assembly, and what suggestions might they have for the future?

Richard Gowan: We must remember that key figures in the founding of the UN argued that this was a system that would preserve the old imperial order.

Instead, the UN, and especially the General Assembly, provided a framework for countries to emerge from colonialism, and then step onto the world stage, start talking about global politics, and start challenging power.

The assembly played a central role in the history of decolonization, and I think if you told someone like Winston Churchill, who was present at the creation of the UN, they would have been very surprised to hear that it happened.

UN News: As a UN expert, what is the importance of keeping the UN in New York at this time?

Richard Gowan: We’re at a time where there are a lot of diplomatic clubs out there – you’ve got the G7, you’ve got the BRICS, you’ve got a lot of different forums.

But we must remember that for many small countries, and for many middle powers, the General Assembly is still their main stage. This is their main platform for discussing global affairs.

Although you often hear people say that the UN is in decline, every September we get a record number of leaders coming to speak at the General Assembly.

This is still an important stage. It is also worth remembering that the place where the world reacts to urgent crises is the General Assembly.

There is no other alternative than that. You can move the General Assembly to another city, but I think for many leaders around the world, there’s something special about having this institution where they can make their voices heard in the midst of a global media scene and a global diplomatic scene.