The Age of Impunity – November 10th, 2023

Inside the Situation Room, Guest Lecture Reflection: David Miliband

David Miliband’s openness and candor impressed me. Back in September, inside the situation room, we discussed at length the role of credibility. Credibility comes from addressing hard truths, even when they are uncomfortable.

Miliband was a great example this hypothesis in motion. He gained the trust of the lecture hall by addressing divisive current events, stating his biases, and throwing in some light British banter too—all of which captivated the audience and motivated students to participate, and leading to a thoughtful and bold discussion.  

I agree with some of the literature by Miliband about our current Global Politics as undergoing an “age of impunity” — meaning, we are living through a period where politicians and leaders of every kind can, and do, get away with anything. The reason, he argues, is to incapacitate the multilateral system. Regulations that were designed to lessen the possibility of abuses of power are being weakened, both on a national and international scale. Brexit is a prime example, Miliband said, being Britain’s “biggest act of peacetime self-harm.”

I see these points as extremely relevant when applied to the United Nations. While working at the Office of the President of the General Assembly last year, I experienced diplomatic actors at various levels who undermined the very accountability the UN attempts to abide by. First, it gets undermined by corrupt politicians who prioritize short-term political agendas over global interests. Then, there is the broader abandonment of international rule making, in which Member States routinely fail to uphold voluntary agreements.

Under the Trump administration, for example, the US dropped international human rights from its list of policy priorities, just before withdrawing from of the Paris Accords. What precedent did that set for other Member States?

One of three key recommendations from the International Rescue Committee, of which Miliband is the Chief Executive Officer, is to “Confront shared global risks.” The two recommendations are to break the cycle of crises and to protect civilians in conflict.

But aren’t these recommendations in line with all-too-familiar mission statements of international aid organizations such as the United Nations? As much as I am critical of the effectiveness of the UN in today’s political landscape, I am even more doubtful that an NGO like the IRC has the leverage to confront global risks more so than that of an international organization with 193 acting members.

I liked the stance that Miliband outlined on the effectiveness of NGO’s during his lecture. My personal experience working with NGOs has led me to similar conclusions. “NGOs have less power and more freedom [than international organizations]—you see the people, but you lose sight of the big picture.” I hate to think that we live in a world where countries are so vested in their own national interests that NGOs have become more capable of mobilizing action than multilateral organizations. But that is what Miliband is insinuating, and he isn’t completely wrong to lean that way either.

Impunity seemed to be the word of the day. The Eurasia Group defines it as “the exercise of power without accountability.” In its harshest form, it’s the commission of crime without punishment. The idea behind the Atlas of Impunity is that by ranking countries on impunity, we draw attention to the greatest abuses of power, and from there we can pressure policymakers to take action.

Clearly policymakers within the countries of greatest offense aren’t eager to challenge their authorities. After reading the Atlas, I was left wondering, who will act based on these findings?  

In Myanmar, ranked fourth highest in impunity in the world, who will dismember the Junta and set Aung San Suu Kyi free? What use are these quantitative tools if no one is willing to act upon them? Furthermore, what influence can they have if the very international organizations that are set up to confront global risks such as impunity are paralyzed by the inability of its permanent members to act in unison (I’m talking to you, UN Security Council). The Security Council, created to (ironically) guard world security, has instead become a battleground for political power—an engagement that undermines its own purpose by including just five participants!  

Maybe Pope Francis was right. We do live in a world that suffers from an indifference to suffering itself. The question still remains, in the face of gridlock, who will have the willingness, the credibility, and the resources to meaningfully act?