The Structure of the United Nations System - Essay Example

The Current and Future Role of the United Nations There are a number of different views of the United Nations, from the idea that it is an s of pure power to one of pure joke, and several shades in between. The ultra-conservatives see the inherent value in the United Nations system and only see the problems as things to improve. In the groups that we could call liberals, the main view of the United Nations is that it has serious problems which might be alleviated if the power balance were readjusted. There are two groups which perceive the United Nations as totally ineffective and worthless. They differ in their reasons. One group believes the UN is controlled by the big four and simply a pawn of the United States, because the other three most powerful member states are economically dependent upon the U.S. economy. There is another smaller group which believes quite the same is true of the small member nations controlling the votes. The other main reason for considering the U.N. ineffectual is that it has no teeth and cannot ever be impartial (unless we find a Martian or two to run it). These people mostly believe that the U.N. has outlived it usefulness and should be disbanded. Harari and Bouza see the UN strictly as unaccomplished potential. They say that “Most of the influential members of international organizations have a common cultural background. The style of the United Nations is Western European, as many observers have remarked. The countless shared values, preferences, behavioral patterns and cultural assumptions of this international - and inter-organizational - elite of international organizations’ western or westernized members strongly orient their eventual innovative efforts. On the one hand, these common traits provide an impetus towards innovations, since western cultures prize novelty, dynamism and change. On the other hand, they limit its scope, since only those innovations compatible with the tenets of western cultures are favoured by this group.” (Harari, and Bouza 50) This has the effect of alienating many members and non-members which do not value western culture and who may even see it as the enemy. The U.N. is seldom seen as really impartial, and is viewed by many as the puppet of western imperialism. Even those who see it as essentially good and necessary have doubts. “Dissatisfaction with the way the UN system and the development experts operate is steadily increasing. Their whole approach to development issues and the style of functioning are being openly questioned. In the eyes of critics, the results achieved are not commensurate with the effort. Development has not lived up to its promise, and the experts have simply failed.” (Pitt and Weiss 166) Some research writers are critical of the United Nations and have many things to point out which are wrong, but believe that it is essentially doing a pretty good job in a difficult situation. Amerasinghe is one of those who has taken great care with a complete analysis of all the facets of the U.N. operations and made pointed suggestions concerning improvements which must follow. (Amerasinghe, C.F. 1996) White, on the other hand, is not as critical nor as thorough, but he also believes that the institution is the best currently available and should be improved rather than dissolved, as some have suggested. (White, N.D. 1996) “The structure of the UN system derives from the basic fact about the system, that members are states and its converse, that states are members, increasingly becoming true as the UN now is nearly universal (it was not when the UN was founded). That the world to a large extent is a state system, and that it is the task of the UN to reflect this, will be considered beyond dispute here.”(Pitt and Weiss 2) However, Pitt and Weiss go on to say that the world is not necessarily totally comprised of “state systems”. That is, there are entities which exist that are not states, but organizations, generally sheltered by one or more states, but not part of any and not answering to any authority outside themselves. It is these organizations which cause many of the current problems of government by international law. (Pitt and Weiss 2) It is an unfortunate situation that the U.N. member nations often cannot agree upon courses of action and that the U.N. has less than optimum power in poor situations. However, giving the U.N. more power is problematic, since it is also often seen as not independent enough, nor representative of the international will, especially of its members. “It is within the parameters of these formulations that various proposals have also emerged about the role of the United Nations. Whereas the proponents of the first formulation wish to see a wider managerial role for the world body in the direction of global governance, the second one stresses the need for the United Nations to assume a counselling role. On the other hand, the third tends to favour a role for the United Nations somewhere between management and counselling as the most practical way to enable the organization to survive the challenges confronting it, and yet at the same time achieve a position whereby it would be able to have substantial input in shaping a more peaceful and stable world.” (Saikal 63) While all of these assume that any one nation can control the future of the U.N., Tagashi Inoguchi sees three possible futures of the U.N., and all of these are more dependent upon the actions of both member and non-member nations, not-state organizations and the U.N. itself. Inoguchi explains, “Kissingers Diplomacy is Westphalian; Russetts Grasping the Democratic Peace is Philadelphian; and Huntingtons Clash of Civilizations is anti-utopian. By Westphalian I mean a framework in which state sovereignty reigns supreme. By Philadelphian I mean a framework in which popular sovereignty stands firm. By antiutopian I mean a framework in which the loss of sovereignty is the key feature. The presumption is that these three frameworks of global politics are competing, and that it is not quite clear which one will prevail.” (Alagappa and Inoguchi 459) Regardless of the different views, it is clear that the U.N. is neither going to disappear, be dissolved nor fall totally under the control of any of the various competing factions. Ideally some way will be found to make the U.N. more independent and give it more teeth. Under the will of a true international coalition with a clear mandate to keep the peace and protect member nations, the U. N. could become the international governing force of the future. However, member nations will have to cooperate for the common good to make this happen. Weiss see the U.N. as needing only a push in the right direction, to make the U.N. a formidable force for future good. “With the right system of recruitment and training, with the growth of genuinely international loyalties, with a supporting corps of efficient and devoted officials, with irrelevant boundaries of competence (or perhaps incompetence) removed, the United Nations agencies might, one day, become a strong positive force for development.” (Pitt and Weiss 192) Kaul sees the current problems as a result of the relative success of this institution. “The United Nations present “crisis” is, in large measure, a consequence of its success—of progress in multilateral cooperation. And it is a reflection of todays multi-actor world and the horizontal de-concentration of power that it entails. Many issues are now being simply handled by other, more specialized actors. But again, it is not a crisis to avert the over-burdening of international, intergovernmental fora with issues that other actors are better suited to address. Rather, it is a sign of efficiency— of saving in terms of transaction costs.” (Kaul 306) Even with all these competing ideas, one thing is clear: the U.N. is evolving and possibly in the right direction. The questions remain as to how we, and other member nations, can help to guide this entity into the proper place in future international relations and law. Starting over is simply not an option, since there would, necessarily be a vacuum into which all kinds of possibly dangerous forces might flow. It is a case of being better off with a slightly less than perfect, but functional, governing international body. What we must do is help the U.N. to evolve into a truly powerful and internationally mandated entity designed and molded to protect the future of peaceful international relations. There is considerably more debate about how this is to be done than there is about the nature and success or failure of the current U.N. Some want to see it become truly independent, perhaps by recruiting people from totally powerless and non-strategic countries, such as Tonga, and training them in a truly international venue with input and feedback from all member nations. Others see it evolving into a guiding role while the true power stays with member nations. "By helping to build effective regional organizations and security communities, however, the United Nations has a better chance of achieving its goals." (Peou 89) However, it is likely that the true solution will be something in between these extremes. Until international member nations can act as one with a common goal, the U.N. cannot truly be empowered as an independent entity. Once these nations learn to act as one with a common goal, there will be no need for an independent United Nations to keep the peace. The solution for resolving the problems of the governance of the United Nations and its effectiveness eliminates the need for a solution. Sources Cited Alagappa, Muthiah, and Takashi Inoguchi, eds. International Security Management and the United Nations. New York: United Nations University Press, 1999. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Amerasinghe, C.F. 1996 . Priciples Of The Institutional Law Of International Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 519 pp Harari, Denyse, and Jorge Garcia Bouza. The Nature of United Nations Bureaucracies. Ed. David Pitt and Thomas G. Weiss. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986. 39-57. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Kaul, Inge. "15 Governing Global Public Goods in a Multi-Actor World: the Role of the United Nations." New Millennium, New Perspectives: The United Nations, Security, and Governance. Ed. Ramesh Thakur and Edward Newman. New York: United Nations University Press, 2000. 296-314. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Peou, Sorpong. "3 Security-Community Building for Better Global Governance." Global Governance and the United Nations System /. Ed. Volker Rittberger. New York: United Nations University Press, 2001. 88-121. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . Pitt, David, and Thomas G. Weiss, eds. The Nature of United Nations Bureaucracies. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1986. Questia. 15 Oct. 2006 . White, N.D. 1996 . The Law of international organizations. Manchester, Manchester University Press. 285pp. Read More