We have our first occasion of a question asked via email. As I told you on the first day, I will reply to the email and then share both the Q and the A with the whole class. See below the Q&A.
All the best,
Q: What role has played the UN to mantain a world equilibrium? Was it an entity weighted more on the US' side due to its democatic-libertarian nature (cf. UDHR)? If yes, why were the NAM countries still accepting UN's "super partes" status and didn't reject its influence on their businesses?
A: The UN did not play any role and was not weighted more on the US' side because permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC) have veto power, which means that US & co. could not prevail – the Soviet Union (and since 1971 communist China) would use their veto to make sure that US would not have the upper hand. This architecture of veto power had been made since the beginning exactly to guarantee equilibrium among the big powers.
The only case in which the UNSC was able to vote “against” the interest of the USSR was the Korean War, because the Soviet representatives had been withdrawn from the UNSC – they thought that the UNSC could not work in the absence of a permanent member and so their absence was meant to hamper even the discussion of the Korean war. That move backfired, because the other UNSC permanent members and rotating members sat, discussed and decided. After that occasion, the Soviets never miss a meeting ever again.
A different matter is of the General Assembly (UNGA), which does not decide actions but discusses whatever topic and issues resolutions that are highly important politically and programmatically. Thanks to the decolonisation, the balance in UNGA shifted towards the South, which focused on non Cold War issues.