The United Nations and international order - Essay Example

? The United Nations and International Order Introduction In September 2000, government and leaders met at the UN’s Headquarters in New York and reaffirmed in a UN Millennium Declaration that they were confident that the UN and its corresponding Charter were significant instruments for achieving a “more peaceful, prosperous and just world”.1 Undoubtedly, since the formation of the UN following the Second World War, the world has avoided a subsequent World War, yet, interstate conflict and atrocities committed against populations that continued up the UN’s Millennium Declaration and the events that follow, including the US war on Iraq and more recently genocide in the Sudan have raised doubts about the UN’s significance in maintaining international order.2 This paper analyzes the historical and political underpinnings of the UN and its role in establishing international order. This paper essentially examines and analyzes the objectives of the UN and how those objectives are expressed and implemented. This paper will therefore be divided into two main parts. The first part of this paper provides the historical and political factors behind the creation of the UN. This part of the paper also examines the UN Charter and the expression of the UN’s objectives in the UN Charter. The Second part of this paper, analyzes the UN’s effectiveness in realizing its Charter objectives; namely, maintaining the international order. The UN: Historical Overview The League of Nations which was formed in the aftermath of the First World War obviously failed to maintain the international order since the Second World War was not far behind. As a result, the Second World War Allies consisting of the US, China, The USSR and the UK came to the realization that an international intergovernmental body should be formed for the express purpose of promoting and ensuring world security and peace. What followed were conferences in Dumbarton Oaks in 1944 and subsequently in San Francisco the following year in 1945. These conferences ended with a UN Charter that was finalized in June of 1945 and it came into force in October of 1945.3 With United Nations replacing the League of Nations the new World Court also replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice. Similarly, the UN decided on promoting peace and security via a framework that consisted of an “international organization” as opposed to the League of Nation’s framework of a global government.4 Thus the UN set out to consciously distance itself from the failed League of Nations. Setting the general tone of equality among the international community, Article 2(1) of the UN Charter 1945 specifically states that the UN was “based on sovereign equality of all of its Members”.5 The UK and the USSR were opposed to the UN becoming involved in anything outside of political and security issues. Even so, it was determined that the UN could not be effective without the authority to delve into the underlying root causes of armed conflict such as the economic, social and ideological factors the create tensions among and within states.6 In this regard, the UN’s mandate in maintaining international order would be somewhat expansive. It would not merely limit the scope of its authority to actual conflict, but would take on a much broader role in the international order. Early Challenges to the UN’s International Order Agenda The Allies of the Second World War were for all intents and purposes the founding fathers of the UN. Collectively, the Allies were the world’s Great Powers, having successfully defeated fascism and the Nazi powers. Thus the Great Powers assumed a pivotal role in the UN’s peacekeeping mandate that was designed to maintain and regulate international order. At the time, the main powers with the authority to negotiate peace and order were vested in the US and the USSR. The prevailing belief was that world peace and security was not possible unless the Great Powers cooperated and coordinated efforts to prevent and punish “aggression”. 7 This approach was problematic in that it goes against the UN’s Charter declaration that it proceeded on the basis of equality among nations.8 By relegating peace keeping and security to the Great Powers, any other nation was perceived as inferior to the Great Powers and was thus forced to submit to the stronger will of the Great Powers. The irony is, forced compliance with the stronger will of a stronger state was the primary sources of tension that eventually gave way to and characterized the ideology behind the aggression of the Second World War’s Nazis and Fascists. As a solution to the conditions that influenced the Second World War, the UN was essentially meant to be an immediate remedy for the prevailing forces that created political tensions and upheaval. Thus, the climate surrounding the formation of the UN was one in which the triumphant Allies who had prevailed against the Nazis and the Fascists, were determined to safeguard against the emergence of a similar power in the future. It was determined that having regard to the humanitarian crimes and the large number of casualties associated with the Second World War, a similar experience was far too much of a price for the global community to play yet again. Rather than taking a holistic approach to the underlying root causes of the Second World War, the UN was established in such a way to confer upon the Great Powers the authority to contain and control state powers and this was profoundly important to the Great Powers with the start of the Cold War and the development of nuclear power. It can therefore be argued that the primary focus of the UN was to suppress the political powers of those states that could conceivably emerge in the same way as Germany, Japan and Italy did during the Second World War and the years leading up to it.9 It is against this background that the purposes of the UN are examined. The UN Charter of 1945 describes its purposes as the attainment of international peace and security via universal cooperation. Article 1(1) of the UN Charter specifically states that peace and security internationally will be accomplished by taking: effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.10 Thus the UN’s Charter specifically accepts that the means by which peace is attempted, can by itself lead to conflict between states.11Yet the UN permitted the Great Powers the right to determine what amounted to the correct political ideologies for keeping the peace among nations and what amounted to a potential breach of the peace. Not only is this inconsistent with the idea of international cooperation it is also inconsistent with Article 1(2) of the UN Charter which provides that the purpose of the UN is: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.12 Further difficulties however, in achieving international cooperation are implicit in the international organization in which the UN is shrouded. The UN as an international institution consists of many different nation states that have different political ideologies and goals. In addition, the prevailing and causative factors that gave way to the Second World War were centered round abusive political powers. As time went on, particularly with the Cold War, the maintenance of world peace and security was more broadly defined. Diversity among nations inform that there are various different concerns and factors that can conceivably disrupt world peace and security. With the onset of the Cold War and to the present day, the many different issues that concern different members states to the UN are environmental protection, free trade, the recognition of newly emerging states, free trade, laws, economic policies, the proliferation of nuclear arms, sustainable development and international terrorism. Thus the formation of the UN and the implementation of its founding charter were founded on the primary issues that gave way to the Second World War and containing those issues. Be that as it may, those issues and the conditions giving rise to them have changed dramatically over the years and have tested the authenticity of the UN’s ability to effectively maintain the international order. The UN’s Effectiveness in Maintaining International Order The UN Charter’s peace and security purposes and cooperative strategies for achieving peace and security have been tested since during and since the end of the Cold War which ended in 1989. The post-conflict peace building undertones of the UN Charter have been reshaped to embrace a more realistic approach to preventing conflict, managing conflicts and “post-conflict reconstruction.”13 During the Cold War, the UN was confronted by the threat of a war between two Super Powers, the US and the USSR, both of which had strong veto powers in the UN. Proxy wars that were fought between the two super powers also challenged the UN’s ability to maintain the international order as it was powerless to prevent these wars and powerless still to prevent successive proxy wars, particularly the Wars in the Middle East.14 With the Cold War coming to an end, it was anticipated that the UN would take a more decisive and effective part in maintaining the international order. However, the UN has remained essentially just as powerless as it did during the Cold War era. As Tschirigi explains: The anticipated peace dividend did not materialize for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Instead, the early 1990s was a period of intense insecurity, ethnic conflict and genocide, deadly violence with overwhelming civilian deaths and casualties, widespread suffering, and massive refugee and population overflows within and across borders.15 The UN did however, take a decisive stance in the first Gulf War by agreeing to the military intervention in Iraq and thus represented a first semblance of international cooperation since the Korean War. 16The UN also agreed to peacekeeping measures in the aftermath of the Cold War than it had done during the Cold War era. In this regard, the UN agreed to peacekeeping strategies that consisted of the provision of humanitarian assistance, building nations and on some occasions the UN supervised national elections.17 Aside from these UN efforts toward maintaining the international order, there were a number of developments during the 21st century that exposed the UN’s ineffectiveness in terms of maintaining the international order. Although the UN had developed a framework that facilitated the UN’s authority to intervene and promulgate peace keeping missions, the UN continued to manifest a general inability to effectively prevent conflicts and resolve conflicts between nations.18 History informs that the UN did not intervene in the Bosnian conflict in an appreciable way. The UN also failed to satisfactorily resolve the political tensions in Somalia and was decidedly to slow in responding to genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan. When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, the UN was either powerless or uninvolved.19 The UN’s inability to effectively maintain the international order is related to the UN Charter which was formed at a time when peace was looked at in an entirely different way and keeping the peace was informed by a narrow spectrum. What was defined as international peace at the time is quite different from the tensions that define international peace in the 21st century. Thus the UN is trapped and guided by an outdated instrument: the UN Charter of 1945. James informed that when the UN Charter was promulgated, international peace, security and order were narrowly and precisely perceived and defined. The fact is, peace was perceived as: …the absence of armed hostilities between sovereign states. Accordingly, peace could be said to be threatened only when such a conflict was imminent or likely.20 In this regard, the UN Charter was designed to describe the correct reactions to and the means by which conflict risks were assessed and prevented.21 The UNs resolutions in more recent times reflect the ineffectiveness of the UN’s Charter in dealing with the realities of the international order today. These resolution attempt to expand upon and redefine the UN Charter’s mandate. Ultimately, UN Resolutions are attempts to redefine international peace, security and order. The UN has had to rethink conflict causes, prevention and management in response to a number of incidents and situations that have occurred during the 21st century. What was perceived as a threat to international peace and the international order have changed dramatically since the Second World War. The UN’s Resolutions are attempts to take account of the new realities that threaten world peace and order. 22 Be that as it may, many of these Resolutions are compromises and do not realistically reflect the UN’s initial intentions.23 The UN Security Council is bereft of power in that the US is essentially empowered to ensure that virtually any resolution that it desires is passed and if it does not get its way, will do as it pleases in any event.24 The reality is, the UN’s political regime is entirely unbalanced in that its permanent members, the Allies of the Second World War retain for themselves devastating veto authority. The natural result is that international cooperation is only possible where the permanent members agree and all of their subordinates are either forced to or leveraged to cooperate with the permanent members of the UN. 25 Arguably, a situation in another state may not be a threat to the international order, peace and security. Yet a state with veto powers could vote for intervention for purely self-serving reasons. Similarly, a state with veto powers may block a resolution or influence a compromised resolution in situations where there is a real threat to international peace, security and order. According to James the decision-making process in the UN can be entirely too “drastic” and is decidedly “highly centralized”.26 For example, the UN Security Council has a fixed membership and is aimed at taking representative action. This representative action is the UN on behalf of the international community. When the UN Security Council makes a decision, all member states are expected to respect and adhere to that decision.27 Specifically, Articles 39-51 of the UN Charter 1945, permits the Security Council to take whatever action is necessary for maintaining international peace, security and order.28 For example, the UN may impose upon member states a duty to either partially or wholly implement economic sanctions or discontinue trade relations with specific states. Moreover, the UN Security Council may also require that member states cease diplomatic relations with a targeted state. impose partial or whole economic sanctions or relations with an offending nation.29 The UN Security Council may also: Take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.30 The reality is however, some of the worlds’ most expensive and “sensitive” matters are ultimately decided by only a few.31 Certainly in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, this centralization of power was not only understood but was appropriate since the world was largely of one mind in that most of the world was solidly positioned against Fascism and Nazism and trusted the Great Powers who had eradicated those threats to world peace. However, the 21st century is decidedly different. There are far more tensions between more states than there would be just after a major world war. Thus there are various political and economic ideologies among the member states of the UN. Majority rule however is narrowly defined by the delegation of powers to a few and those few maintain the lion’s share of economic and military power. The result is democratic institutions are not reflected in the UN’s mandate to maintain international order. Instead, the minority represents the majority in the UN’s Security Council. Therefore the UN has traversed far from its desire to achieve cooperation, yet continues to yield to its centralization of power among the Great Powers. The Veto system in the UN is entirely problematic in that it does not encourage, nor does it promote international cooperation which is decidedly the key to maintaining the international order, peace and security. In certain circumstances, the UN requires the consent of all UN member states for a particular course of action. For example, by virtue of the UN Charter, the UN Security Council is only able to obtain military assistance from a member states if they all agree to provide it in advance.32 In a number of specific situations, the UN is required to obtain the consent of all members with regard to enforcement. For instance, under the UN Charter, the Council may only seek military aid from contracting states that “have specifically agreed in advance to provide it” (James 1988, 76). Thus one state’s veto would overrule the votes of the majority.33 Veto powers further compromise the democratic conventions of the UN In that the Charter calls for all permanent members to agree on a decision that is regarded as important. Thus this confers a form of privileged authority on the Former Soviet Union, the US, China, the UK and France, the five permanent members of the UN. More importantly, each of these states may veto any action that the UN may deem necessary to resolve, prevent or manage a dispute or conflict between states. Even more troubling if one of these states is a party to a conflict, they could use their veto powers to take the matter away from the UN and its plans for maintaining international order. As James notes, it is actually the: Great Powers that might be expected to present the gravest threats to international peace and that will assuredly have a significant range of friends on behalf of whose interests they may be expected to act.34 Obviously, in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, the five permanent members were decidedly able to agree on the narrow issues that concerned them all and for which they were each equally passionate about. At the time, the five permanent members had fixed ideas about what was a predictable breach of the peace and what should be done to prevent a breach of international peace. However, today, international peace and a breach of the peace can mean entirely different things to each of the permanent members to the UN and to all members of the UN generally. It is therefore impossible to obtain unanimity between them. Complicating matters, each of the members of the UN, particularly the great powers have formed alliances and have very different political and social ideologies. Complicating matters even further, members states are typically not predisposed to collaborate with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are a part of the UN’s international framework and are more active in the field and on the site of conflict or brewing conflict.35 As James puts it, the distribution of veto power leaves one with the impression that the “UN as a whole” is “largely emasculated in respect of the achievement of its main goal”.36 It is difficult to imagine how the UN’s regulatory and operative framework is consistent with achieving its goals of maintaining international peace, security and order. The framework for achieving these goals is one of cooperation among and between all states within the international community.37 However, the distribution of power within the UN can have two diametrically opposed and polarizing consequences. On the one hand the powers can be used to bring about a legitimate aim for the promotion of world peace and security and promulgation of international order. However, on the other hand, that power may be used for entirely selfish and altruistic reasons.38 Conclusion When the Great powers came together in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, the prevailing issues that obviated the need to form the UN were limited to those factors that characterized oppressive powers in Germany, Japan and Italy. Thus international order was perceived in an entirely different way than it is perceived today. Moreover, the founding fathers were embattled having just endured a major war and wanted to take advantage of the failures attributed to the League of Nations in that it had not been able to prevent a Second World War. The resolution was perceived as cooperation among the international community. However, the veto powers and the virtual autonomy of the five permanent members to the UN illustrate that the UN has been far from cooperative in coping with the prevention, management and cessation of breaches of the peace. Be that as it may, since the establishing of the UN the world has not suffered through a world war. It can therefore be argued that maintaining the world peace may not require international cooperation as called for by the UN. However, having regard to the proxy wars in the Middle East, the Gulf Wars and many other conflicts and humanitarian crimes, the effectiveness of the UN in maintaining international order, peace and security is seriously in doubt Bibliography Cronin, B. (2002) “The Two Faces of the United Nations: The Tensions Between Intergovernmentalism and Transnationalism”. Global Governance, Vol. 8: 53-71. Diehl, P. (2005) The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Independent World. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. James, A. (1988) “Unit Veto Dominance in United Nations Peace-Keeping.” Cited in Finkelstein, L. (ed) Politics in the United Nations Systems. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Malone, D. (2004). The UN Security Council: From the Cold War to the 21st Century. Boulder Colorodo: Lynne Reinner Publishers. Moskowitz, M. (1980) The Roots and Reaches of the United Nations and Decisions. Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands: BRILL. Paulus, A. (2008). “Between Incapacity and Indispensability: The United Nations and International Order.” Cited in Miller, R. A. and Bratspies, R. M. (Eds.). Progress in International Law. The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Reisman, M. (Jan. 1993) “The Constitutional Crisis in the United Nations”. The American Journal of International law, Vol. 87(1): 83-100. Schachter, O. (Jul. 1991) “United Nations Law in the Gulf Conflict”. The American Journal of International law. Vol. 85(3): 452-473. Tschirgi, N. (December 2003). “Peacebuilding as the Link Between Security and Development: Is the Window of Opportunity Closing?” International Peace Academy Studies in Security and Development, 1-25. UN Charter 1945. United Nations Millennium Declaration, Resolution 55/2 of 2000. Weiss, T.; Forsythe, D. and Coate, R. (2007) The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Weiss, T. (2003). “The Illusion of UN Security Council Reform.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 26(4): 147-161. Read More