By Matt Underwood UN report finds United Nations reports are not widely read, and honestly, it’s not that surprising. The news itself is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn’t it? A report on reports that aren’t being read? Well, color me unsurprised. It’s a bit like someone finally realizing the emperor has no clothes, except the emperor is the UN, and the clothes are… well, lengthy reports.
The core issue seems to stem from a fundamental disconnect between the UN’s output and its audience. The UN is churning out a significant volume of reports – the Secretary-General himself mentioned thousands of meetings and hundreds of reports, with a 20% increase since 1990. That’s a lot of paper, or digital files, to wade through. The general feeling is that many of these reports end up gathering digital dust, unread and unheeded. And really, who has the time to read them all?
Why aren’t they being read? Some comments suggest the UN’s ineffectiveness plays a part. The UN’s structure itself, particularly the Security Council and its veto-wielding permanent members, contributes to the perceived limitations. The ability of any one of the major powers to block a decision, no matter how many other nations agree, seems to undermine the UN’s ability to take action. There’s a sense that the UN is more a forum for talk than a body with real teeth. And let’s face it, when those with the power can effectively ignore the UN’s pronouncements, why would anyone else pay them much mind?
There’s also the feeling that the UN is not designed to be a world government. The UN’s primary function, it’s argued, is to facilitate dialogue, especially among the major nuclear powers. Its purpose from the get-go was to be a place to talk, not necessarily a place to dictate. It was designed to be slightly better than the League of Nations at preventing a complete breakdown of international relations. The Security Council was set up to be security against nuclear war by locking the 5 nuclear countries into a 5-way standoff. The rest is just decoration.
The report itself might be getting lost in the noise, too. The sheer volume of information generated by the UN is staggering, and not all of it is going to be equally relevant or engaging. With so much content available, it’s easy for reports to get buried, especially if their titles or subject matter don’t immediately grab attention. There’s also the question of who the intended audience is. The UN’s primary focus is not public opinion, which perhaps explains the gap.
The question of who is actually reading these reports then arises. It seems, from the data cited, even the most popular reports have relatively low download numbers, and those downloads aren’t necessarily translating into readers. The UN also has to consider, that downloads don’t equal readers. Many are scooped up by archival servers.
Furthermore, the context of global politics is critical. The UN operates in a world of competing interests, national sovereignty, and power dynamics. The very nature of the UN, the need for compromise, and the influence of powerful nations, often lead to frustrating outcomes. The UN has no real power and has to be able to play the diplomatic game to survive.
It’s also clear that there are strong opinions on who should be a permanent member of the Security Council. If you want the system at all, you have to live with the veto, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to reform it. Some comments suggest that the US and China’s veto power shouldn’t be equal to smaller countries, or that we should consider a weighted voting system. But the challenge of gaining buy-in from major players is clear.
Ultimately, this report highlights a persistent challenge for the UN: How to bridge the gap between its output and its impact. With so many meetings and reports, maybe they should focus on more action and less talking. It’s a reminder that even in a world of interconnectedness, getting your message heard, and more importantly, acted upon, is a constant struggle.