Why the UN Has Failed to Put an End to War - Essay Example

To What Extent the United Nations As Currently Organized Represents a Fulfillment of Kant's Conception in Perpetual Peace of an International Federation of States under the Rule of Law Consider to what extent the United Nations as currently organized represents a fulfillment of Kant's conception in Perpetual Peace of an international federation of states under the rule of law. Also consider why the UN has failed to put an end to war. Be sure to conduct your discussion in relation to Habermas article, A Pluralist World Society?  An international organization aiming towards maintaining international peace with respect to human rights, economic development, social progress, and international security and law, the United Nations came into existence in 1945 after World War 2, in an effort to put tyranny around the globe to an end. With currently a 192 member status – the U.N.O also includes nearly every sovereign state in the world. In its fight to restore and maintain international peace, the United Nations Organization has endured many a poke from countries worldwide who feel their position as sovereign state over another less privileged country has been usurped. This peace-organization, as such, is forced to do many a battle in order to maintain relative peace and harmony in a world where people are bent on killing one another over the slightest of excuses. As part of its admirable duties as global peace maker, the United Nations has, as of 2005, deployed more than 60 peace keeping forces around the world. It also is first in line to help combat emergencies by arranging for humanitarian relief for victims of natural – and manmade – disasters. By setting international standards for Human Rights (including minorities and women), it has accomplished to give these undermined groups a rightful place in the global society. At present it is engaged in preventing nuclear proliferation around the globe, alongside fighting against terrorism with other global superpowers. (The United Nations, Briefing Papers, pp.1) Kant’s view of perceptual peace states that no particular treaty of freedom for any state will be accepted if it holds even the slightest possibility of future war. This is because any such treaty will actually be more like a time-bound truce, whence countries are just waiting to jump at each other’s throats and spill blood at the slightest incentive. This happens when any two states, tired to the bone with warring with each other call it a truce – with such a peace treaty – but such a truce can never last long. Also, no sovereign state has the right to take up another state as its dominion – whether by force, inheritance, or domination, etc. This is because such an act reduces states to mere things, not sovereign states; to be traded for profit at the cost of the people of the nation. This is akin to treating a nation like a piece of property, without a thought to the moral obligations that state has to itself; as though the state being occupied had, in fact, no such roots of heritage binding its people to itself. Europe is one continent quite used to such treatment of nations; where its people see their nations joined together in matrimony, “No state has the right to interfere with the constitution of another state; and none shall commit any acts that would make subsequent peace between two warring countries impossible”. (Kant, pp.10) No state has the right to interfere in the matters of another state; unless the latter has internal conflicts that are heightened to such an extent so as to cause its internal districts/cities declare their intentions of leaving the aforementioned country; then, and only then, may another state choose to take sides of either party wishing for independence. Kant also believes that, given time, armies of countries around the world will be totally abolished as there will be no need for war in the future, as differences will ultimately settle down and the human race will throw away its petty grievances and finally become one. By always being prepared to face times of war, the standing armies of countries around the world continuously threaten the existence of other countries; causing them to try to compete with each other, with respect to training of armed forces, number of men enlisted into their armies, arsenal at their disposal, etc. The most dangerous weapon – according to Kant – that a country can have is monetary power. This can bring to the nation’s disposal every resource that it requires in order to beat the competition down. Lastly, Immanuel Kant also stated that no nation can undertake such actions during times of war, which might make it impossible for it to later form a trustful relationship with its enemy. This encompasses actions on the part of the offending army that include hiring of assassins, incitement to treason and trying to poison the leaders of the defending nation. These and other actions are precursors to a rocky relationship; one which would never encourage the sort of friendship that would be the required prerequisite for a truce. When the United Nations is rationally observed, its model seems perfectly in accord with Kant’s vision of Perceptual Peace. This global organization tries its best to bring together a world where differences of the smallest nature can lead to full-fledged wars. In its fight to bring rights to the global population, the United Nations has brought forward laws to protect those less privileged parts of the global society. Looking around us, we see everyday examples where the United Nations has stepped in to prevent the violation of the above mentioned ‘laws’ of Immanuel Kant. These include Palestine and Gaza, where the U.N.O constantly fights to provide rights to those people suffering from illegal occupation of their territories; other disputed territories where clauses 1, 2, 3 and 5 are carried out – alongside the U.N.Os consistent efforts to abolish them – include Bosnia, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc. The currently organized structure of U.N.O focuses perpetually on the implementation of Kant’s vision of Perceptual Peace. The Human Rights Council of the United Nations follows certain procedures to maintain a consistent flow of rights around the globe. The complaint procedure of the Human Rights Council is made up of two working groups (one focusing on the situations while the other focusing on the communications of the required procedure). (The United Nations System, The Human Rights Council, pp.3) The advisory committee is made up of specifically selected members of the Working Group on Communications (five in total), who each represent five different regions of the independent world. These experts review any complaint (s) logged with the Human Rights Board, and if they decide in the affirmative, an investigation is launched in order to determine the cause – and come to a solution that will cater to all. When dealing with Specific Issues of Human Rights Violations, the United Nations has always focused mostly on Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza and Palestine. Even with half the world outrageously demanding the Council’s attention towards other grave violations against human rights committed by others states all over the glove, the U.N.O has always given this one issue preference over the rest. This is because the Israel occupation in Gaza is the largest occupation in the world (with reference only to disputed territories). The report submitted on the Israel-Gaza dispute to the Council in 2009, by the UN Fact-Finding Mission, stated that there was evidence "indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity." (Press Release, U.N Fact Finding Mission 2009) However it was very seriously condemned by Mary Robinson, the High Commissioner for U.N Human Rights as being too politically skewed in its conclusion. It is keeping with the vision of Immanuel Kant that the United Nations has consistently striven towards the struggle to maintain peace – be it globally or in a particular geographical location. However, given so many years of strife, the United Nations Organization has still failed to put an end to warfare around the globe. This is because, in Kant’s terms, “the state of peace among men living side by side is not the natural state (status naturalis); the natural state is one of war”. (Kant, section 2, pp.13) This does not, of course, mean out and out warfare – it could also relate to competition between neighboring states for growth and better armor/defense systems, etc. However, it is true that states may injure one another merely by coexisting. Civilized people may look down upon the savages that live side by side with them on the outskirts of their states, but each in their own way follows the urge to be free – one relatively more irrational than the other. The tribal areas may not follow any laws at all and live in a state of perpetual combat, but neither do their more ‘civilized’ counterparts. Each state believes its law to be sovereign, with no influence from that of another state – thus it is that large armies are ever ready to plunge themselves into battle at first the signal from their divine lord (who can declare war at the slightest provocation, with no risk to himself); however, from within the depths of the evil that lingers within man their lies an almost overmastering disposition to conquer that fatal tendency to jump at one another’s throats before the night is out. This is because man himself struggles to understand that darker side of his nature, and strives to control it in order to provide a certain harmony in the world we live in. The threat of war is eternally present over the horizon, tempting stronger men to conquer the weak and extend their powers and will to command over the globe – and it is to stifle these urges that Laws are made in the first place. The United Nations Organization has been at the forefront in maintaining peace and tranquility in the world; but has never truly been able to fully cloak the globe in a silken cloth of tranquility and amity. There has always been a certain element of bedlam present in the affairs of the world, which even such a large organization as the U.N.O has been unable to curb. When one sits down to analyze the reasons for this particular circumstance, the one inference that practically jumps out at the thinker is this: human nature. Like Immanuel Kant stated, for humans, it is not peace but war which is a natural state of affairs – peace is only ordained by signing treaties and allying oneself with the strongest states (more likely, those who one feels will help one’s nation when the time comes). (Kant, Section 2, pp. 13) As states are run by mere mortals, it is only natural that wars are sparked around the globe – on such mundane issues as race and religion. There are too many differences dividing this world apart, and the U.N.O – though striving admirably to keep locked together the ties of so-called mutual affection – can never truly instill in the different sects around the world, a sense of harmony and brotherhood. The core international law embraces the simple fact that a nation’s self assertion on the outside world pertains to self-determination on the inside. Unless a particular nation has the ability to maintain its own separate identity (which is its own right), it will never truly be accepted as a true sovereign state. If a nation is threatened by other states, it has the right to assert its existence by the help of military force. (Habermas, pp.9) According to Habermas, external sovereignty pertains more to the ability of a nation to cooperate with equal partners rather than defend itself against enemies. This willingness to take equal part in solving global problems presupposes the nation’s right to go to war in order to protect the population against a criminal government (be it externally or internally based). Even though – in accordance to international laws – the nations around the globe can hand over to a world organization (in this case the U.N.O) the right to intervene, the latter is unable to use force in order to impose sanctions to bring about peace and tranquility. This is the basic reason for why the U.N.O has so far failed to implement a global peace. Thus, the members of the international community can very easily retain their superiority based simply on force (example, the United States of America) but the U.N.O is helpless to use the same techniques in order to counteract such methods of global dominance. The procedures that aid towards the delaying of action undertaken by the United Nations in favor of states that have been imposed on by other countries, is the requirement of a certain number of council members to vote in favor of a particular decision (in this case, to counteract an attack by one country on another helpless one) before action can be pursued. (Three Fourth of the votes should be in favor of a particular law for it to be passed in the U.N.O). The United Nations lacks the ability to define (or expand) its own potential at will. It may be empowered, but its power is also limited by its two main functions (secure peace and human rights at a global scale). What the United Nations requires in order to be increasingly effective, if it wishes to reach its ultimate goal of spreading peace around the world, it has to detach the core of its organizations from other special organizations that are associated with independent international organizations. (Habermas, pp.10) However, no matter how reformed a world organization can become, it will never be comprised of individual world citizens, but rather will always be segregated into separate nations. Even though this is completely at odds with Kant’s description of a universal state of nations (as it is more a League of Nations), the present structure causes the states to enter into international law whereby they are a part of an international human rights regime which is able to protect citizens even from their own government if necessary. The United Nations acts as an intermediary between two nations, and has no power to impose any rules/regulations on either nation. Thus, two states in dispute must always agree on one particular point in order for the World Organization to pass a law in the favor/opposition of a particular proposition. There are five countries at present in the United Nations that have been granted veto power with respect to any laws that the U.N. Assembly Council would wish to pass. These countries include the United States of America, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom. (United Nations, Veto Power Countries) (The United Nations System, pp.12) Thus, if ever the entire Assembly Council of the United Nations is in favor of passing a particular law, if either of the above mentioned states uses their veto power, they can completely eliminate the proposed law before it is even passed / implemented. Therefore, with respect to the sanctions being proposed against Iran in the Council of the U.N.O, China and Russia join hands in order to use their special authority to veto any such actions. It has therefore never resulted in Iran facing any sanctions in the face of its determined pursuit of becoming a nuclear power, and the state has therefore been able to use its Uranium to build onto its nuclear armament. With relation to Israel’s occupation in Gaza/Palestine, ninety-nine percent of the Assembly Council is always against the illegal occupation of the Israeli forces in the Moslem states, but sanctions are never imposed on Israel – even though countless genocide cases have been filed against it and proved as well). This is because the United States of America always steps in the breach and uses its Veto Power to prevent the implementation of such sanctions – while simultaneously providing arms to Israel in order for that nation to be well prepared against its neighboring Moslem states in the Middle East. As a result, it has almost been a century since the occupation of Gaza and Palestine took place by the Israeli armed forces, and as yet, no dire change has occurred in the situation of the people of these two states at war. There are, as a result, over 600 check points in the Gaza strip alone. The inhabitants of these territories face Death everyday, and fight against massive odds in order to feed themselves and their family; confronting the sadistic Israeli soldiers, who enjoy the encounter as much as they enjoy pelting a three year old girl with bullets. Other disputed territories include states like Bosnia, Chechnya, and Kashmir – where there has never truly been any implementation of laws by the United Nations, as ‘preference’ countries like Russia and United States use their veto powers respectively in order to prevent the counteraction of such mass genocide as occurs there. This is because the profit to be earned when such places are at war - and therefore the resources they can provide to the above mentioned veto-power-holding countries can be provided to them at staggeringly low prices – is much greater than the profit that could be earned by these super powers during times of peace and tranquility. There is a certain functionalistic relationship between the law and the citizen’s security. The citizens of a state follow a particular law unconditionally – only when the law promises to protect them from evils of the society (such as thievery, anarchy, poverty, misery, the caste system that is still existent in some states, women degradation, etc). (Habermas, pp.14) If the nation’s laws are stable, it is only then that a state can truly identify with itself on a broader scale and start playing at an international level. The United Nations Organization therefore strives for the transition of a cosmopolitan law from an originally, state-centered international law. It is therefore a practically no-win situation, where there is a constant tug of war between countries at opposite ends of the international battlefield, preventing any real truce as such from taking place. Thus the United Nations is helpless as the world is divided into two – the offenders and the defenders. It is unable to impose its laws on any state, and therefore is unable to implement and maintain global peace. Thus, in order to collectively self-assert themselves, the individuals of a nation must first grasp onto their self-determination to rid themselves completely of mental slavery for other, higher powers of the world. (Habermas, pp.9) The numerous situations taking place in different parts of the world cannot be truly controlled by the United Nations Organization. It is the individual people of the states that need to take on responsibility for truly turning things around – on both a local and international level. Yes, some leaders are more politically skewed – in that; they are more prejudiced towards their own private gains than in thinking about the beneficial things they can undertake for their people. Thus, many states around the globe suffer from corruption, poverty, and the like – simply because their leaders prefer thinking about their own selves rather than putting forward their own country’s interests. (Habermas, pp.7) As the Saudi King Abdullah has stated: “if the head is rotten, you can expect the rest of the body to follow likewise…” The case is very true as seen all over the world; the leadership in Afghanistan was corrupt – and now the country is almost debased; the same happened with Iraq and Lebanon. However, one negative aspect of such a circumstance is that due to the petty grievances these leaders take against each other, and the small grudges they decide to harbor, wars erupt between states that were initially, or could have been, the best of friends. One wrong leader can lead thousands of men to war, without a thought to the causalities and the losses to be supported during such a massive movement. He will sit on his ‘throne’ and order the men to attack; and watch, untouched and uninjured as thousands of soldiers will lay their lives to a man they swore fealty to – but who did not care one penny for their worth. Such leaders have caused the world to come to the sorry pass it is at today. According to Habermas’ theory, such corrupt officials are the reason the world is now plunging so quickly into chaos and destruction. These selfish and so-called leaders think of none but themselves; and are completely incapable of feeling for the poor people who follow them so loyally – even to Death’s door. It is no wonder that the United Nations has been in all the years since its birth, as yet unable to provide a solution to the never-ending dilemma of war that is forever plaguing this beautiful planet. The human being is too full of imperfections to be able to see things clearly – and think logically enough. There is always a certain amount of emotion in the decisions our leaders take – be they for the good of the country, or the selfish good of their esteemed selves – which causes a certain percentage of error to enter into any argument, even before it is being discussed with neighboring countries. Therefore, these and other conditions keep the United Nations Organization’s attempts at building and maintaining world peace a little at bay. Not to mention the veto power that the Super Powers of the world have; the United Nations is helpless to act against such drastic opposition. Also, the leaders of these five Super Powers are also promoting their own causes, and letting the world’s problems take a back seat – like so many other leaders around the globe. Thus, the United Nations is powerless to act upon its own will – it is dependent upon the consent of the two disputing parties; and until they come to a mutual agreement, no truce can ever take place. However, knowing human nature – such a situation is almost impossible to achieve. After carefully reviewing the above problems, this writer has come to the conclusion that the United Nations should be given the power to act according to their own conscience, even in the face of opposition, in order to bring peace and stability to the global environment. It should, of course, be first investigated whether the opposition arises out of genuine worry or simply malice, and then a course of conduct should be decided.   Work Citation Kant, Immanuel. Perceptual Peace; Filiquarian Publishing, Llc. Habermas, Jurgen. A pluralist world society. United Nations System. U.N. Fact Finding Mission. 2009 Read More