To What Extent Does the UN Successfully Minimise the Harm of War and Maximise Peace and Security - Coursework Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2011 To what extent does the UN successfully minimize the harm of war and maximize peace and security? The United Nations was formed in 1945 with the main objective of saving succeeding generations from the plague of war and making sure that the horrors of the World Wars are never repeated. More than six decades after its formation, there is no doubt that the biggest security threats the world faces now, and in the decades to come, go far beyond states engaging in aggressive wars. The threats extend to poverty, war and violence within states, communicable diseases and environmental degradation, the spread and possible use of nuclear, chemical, biological and radiological weapons, terrorism and international organized crime. The threats originate from both the non-state as well as state actors, and to human as well as state security. The concern of the United Nations was then state security. However, a key challenge for the 21st century has been to create a new and broader understanding, drawing together all the stands, of what collective security imply and of all the responsibilities, commitments, strategies and institutions that come with it if a collective security system is to be effective, efficient and impartial. This particular paper therefore aims at analyzing the extent at which the UN has successfully minimized the harm of war and maximized peace and security. According to Baliboola (2010), the United Nations has played an important role in the promotion as well as the maintenance of global peace and security by minimizing the harm of war. One of the methods the UN has employed to successfully minimize the harm of war is through its peacemaking and peacekeeping operations. Through these operations, the UN has helped in upholding and restoring global peace and security. It has been able to mobilize various states to contribute armed forces for their peacekeeping mission that monitors ceasefires, forces withdrawal, arms control, setting up buffer zones during wars in addition to getting involved in humanitarian assistance throughout the world. One such operation was during the Iraq war in 1988 where the UN supervised the ceasefire that brought to an end the eight year conflict by the year 1991.To some extent, the United Nation’s operation in Cambodia was also a success as it played a role in bringing to an end a full scale civil war, as a result bringing peace to the nation. Other international peace operations carried out by the UN include the UN Disengagement observer force in Syrian Golan Heights as from June, 1973 to now, UN provisional Force in Southern Lebanon from March, 1978 to present, the first UN emergency Force in the Suez Sinai peninsula from November 1956 to June, 1967.The UN also set up the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda in October, 1993 that supervised the peace agreement, relief supply and humanitarian protection zone that ended in 1996. According to Baliboola (2010), the United Nations has for many years been accredited carrying out global peacekeeping operations, monitoring ceasefires, buffer zones, peace agreements that have helped bring about peace in El Salvador, Southern Sudan, Mozambique and Namibia to a smaller extent. Thakur (2006), however, argues that the international peacekeeping forces can never maintain world peace as they lack both mandated authority and the operational capability to do so. As an defender of the just war theory, the United Nations attempts to formulate how the use of arms can be controlled as well as made more humane and eventually directed towards creating a long lasting peace and justice. Contrary to too easy accusations of irrationality, the UN’s idea of fighting for the sake of peace in reality makes sense of the just war theory. There is therefore no contradiction in engaging in war to keep war in check than it is in fighting fire with fire.Regretably, however, what makes sense within the just war theory more often than not fails in practice. In general, the UN outlines the fundamental rule of international law that territorial integrity of all nations has to be respected as no international order is likely without principle (Trimbaley, 2003). Nevertheless, despite the fact that they have failed to bring about world peace, The UN has successfully stabilized several potentially dangerous situations through its forces. However, despite evidence from peace operations in El Salvador, Mozambique, Croatia, Namibia and East Timor suggesting that the UN succeeded in promoting peace by means of consent, building on the improvement of Chapter VI-based peace-making dialogue and a creative, multidimensional execution of the transitional authority that the peace accord provided, consent has not really assured success. The wars in Angola, for instance, disproved each of the many agreements that purportedly settled them, and the Rwanda genocide disproved the peace accord signed in Arusha.Weak implementations have been blamed to undermine even the best of agreements. Moreover, the successfully implemented operations have been short of challenges (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). In Cambodia, for instance, the UN carried out a multidimensional peace operation, but the peace it had left behind during the year 1993 was incomplete as the Khmer Rouge started again sporadic armed resistance. Cambodia also experienced a coup in the year 1997 and then headed on with an elected government that was more often than not indicted of numerous election irregularities. In El Salvador, Croatia, Mozambique, Namibia and Guatemala, however, peace is firmer. However, even there the prospects of social integration have remained problematic. Despite rising above a number of challenges in addition to achieving many successes, the United Nation’s future as a peace-maker has been under great challenge (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). On the other hand, the extent at which the UN has successfully minimized the harm of war and maximized peace and security can also be seen through the fact that it has helped oversee the setting up of war crime committee and tribunals which have been helpful in reconciliation as well as the trial of war crime offenders that act as a deterrent for the would-be warlords who start conflicts to upset peace. The establishment of tribunals such as those of Rwanda and Yugoslavia based on post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal has made it possible to judge individuals who have carried out crimes against humanity and promote global peace. Through the judicial settlement of conflicts and dispute that jeopardize global peace, the UN has managed both new as well as old territory disputes through the International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice, negotiations, arbitration and mediation between the warring states. The Security Council has on several occasions mediated to prompt states to be more serious in utilizing such methods to uphold as well as global peace and security as peace is essential to all countries. In addition, the UN has established early conflict warning mechanisms that have helped maintain peace and security globally. It has also gone further to do conduct a follow up on early warning with early as well as effective action on whether response required humanitarian or diplomatic efforts. Early warning mechanisms are generally regarded as playing a fundamental role in conflict avoidance, but without early action, early warning is of very little use in enhancing peace and security. The UN’s early warning capabilities have been considerably improved in recent years. In the former Yugoslavia Republic of Macedonia, the UN successfully organized peacekeeping operations prior to the conflicts by reassuring the presence as well as a certain amount of transparency. Such deployments by the UN have helped prevent the type of slip-up that can result in violent conflict, permit time for grievances to be resolved by means of political channels, as a result making it possible to reinforce peace-building institutions and be a significant assurance building peace measure (Baliboola, 2010). On the other hand, Doyle & Sambanis (2006) argues that despite the fact that the UN has played an effective role in legitimizing enforcement coalitions for inter-state, armed collective security, as in the case of Korea and against Iraq during the Gulf War 1, the UN has proven to be a very ineffective peace enforcer in a number of intra-state civil conflicts that transpired during the post-cold war world. As from the year 1990 through to 1993, the United Nation Security Council took up a remarkably intrusive interpretation of the United Nation Chapter VII, enforcement provisions relating to peace and security. Member states therefore approved an essential development in the scope of joint intervention immediately a series of ethnic and civil wars broke out across the globe (Bryden, 2006). However, unfulfilled obligations and the employment of force aggravated severe crisis in peace enforcement. As a result, the UN has failed to solve civil wars involving numerous factions. In Somalia and Bosnia, for instance, peace enforcement amounted to war-making as the UN threatened to enforce outcomes ranging from disarmament to secure zones as well as new state borders. In Somalia, in spite of the presence of a troop of a United Nation Security force and a group of ceasefire observers all over Somalia, the ceasefire was disregarded and instead fighting went on with rising severity, putting humanitarian operations at great risk. Complex relations between the Somalia warlords posed insurmountable difficulty on the road to peace (Doyle & Sambanis, 2010). Towards the last quarter of the year 1992, factions in Somalia split into smaller and smaller factions, with a number of them officially defying the United Nation Security Council, making the situation even difficult to control. In the meantime, a large number of poverty incapacitated refugees were dying of hunger each day. This unsuccessful mission in Somalia seemed to prove the incapability of the United Nations to deal with situations involving numerous parties. Given United Nation’s limited military strength and the difficulty in getting the Somalia warlords to negotiate peacefully, United Nation’s attempt to maintain peace and security like in the case of Somalia operation was bound to fail (Baliboola, 2010). Elsewhere, in Rwanda, the United Nation’s record was a total failure even the attempt to apply enforcement as peace agreements crumbled. As a consequence, over 700,000 Hutus and Tutsis fell in the hands of genocidal extremists who had taken over the Rwandan government. Therefore, according Doyle & Sambanis (2010), the current balance sheet on the United Nations war-making implies that while the UN has played an effective role in legitimizing enforcement coalitions for inter-state, armed collective security, it has indeed proven to be a very ineffective peace enforcer in a number of intra-state civil conflicts that transpired during the post-cold war world. On the other hand, the UN has been successful in giving support to ex-colonies that have just attained their independence in terms of defending their sovereignty. Subsequent to the signing of the United Nation charter, the majority of the past colonies had attained independence with comparatively little threat to global peace and security. World decolonization was a significant peaceful transformation. An example of this is the ex-Belgian colony, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).After the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) attained independence from Belgium in 1960, Belgium’s refusal to take out all of its influence over the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ignited tensions between the two nations. First, chaos and mutinies broke out following a speech made to the African soldiers by a Belgian general in Force Publique, where he argued that the attainment of independence would not bring about any change in their status or role (Baliboola, 2010). This led to fears and anger against the Belgian chief officers who were still in control of the Force Publique within the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) soldiers. Moreover, Belgium also backed the independence of Katanga, a province of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This was meant to protect Belgium citizens living there. The United Nations sent almost 20,000 troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo where it had an instant calming effect. The troops stayed behind until 1964 subsequent to the pulling out of the Belgians, to help the Democratic Republic of Congo government to maintain peace as well as consolidate the independence of the Democratic Republic of Congo. After a while, Katanga also remained as a province. The United Nations has therefore provided an opportunity for change in global peace and security systems. In addition to this, the United Nations has also been able to set aside days to press forward peace and security concerns globally. An example of this is the International Day of Peace. This day is not only meant to celebrate peace but also to reflect on peace situation globally and come up with solutions, and in so doing, the UN commemorates and strengthens the peace ideals within and among states and people. These events have been able to promote as well as maintain the spirit of global peace drives (Baliboola, 2010).For these reason, it can be deduced that United Nations had been very successful in their peacekeeping operations. However, according to Patnaik et.al, (2010), the UN cannot be said to have successfully minimized the harm of war and maximized peace and security. Despite its dignified roles as well the objectives stated within the United Nations Charter, its role today is viewed with a lot of skepticism, and it is admitted that this international organization has not been successful in achieving its goals to the expectations. It is therefore alleged that the UN has outlived its major purpose and that it ought to be shaped to enable it control as well as resolve the present global conflicts. The UN is today an organization of divided member states that have very little commitment for the United Nation’s aims and objectives. The member states as well as the various groups of such states are mainly concerned with their national or group interests which are more often than not in conflict with global community’s interest. The United Nations is also dominated by the rich, powerful nations who time and again disregard or violate the latter spirit of the United Nations Charter. In the eyes of many therefore, the UN has lost its significance and legitimacy and will further decay if appropriate steps are not taken to revive it (Marien, 1987). The Security Council has, for instance, been condemned due to its undemocratic character. The five permanent members consider themselves the custodians of peace and security globally and they are not willing to recognize other United Nations members as their equals. When great powers are involved in a particular conflict, they always want to keep the conflict outside the United Nations jurisdiction, but they insist on applying the UN laws to conflicts involving smaller nations. No important decisions on security are therefore effective without the great powers unanimity. This has therefore hindered the United Nation’s peace efforts as well as undermining its legitimacy as international organization. For these reasons, Patnaik et.al, (2010) argues therefore that the UN cannot be argued to have successfully minimized the harm of war and maximized peace and security. Conclusion In conclusion, it is not realistic to expect the United Nations to be uniformly successful in its efforts to promote global peace, yet there are a number of cases where the United Nations has a very important role. In my opinion, the United Nations can only be as successful as the member states allow as well as require of it. There are of course improvements to be made, but that is always the case for large organizations, as none are ever faultless. The conditions as well as the situations in the world are in invariable. The United Nation ought to be encouraged to be quick in order to handle change and to continue being relevant throughout. On the whole, the United Nations appears to be doing well more than failing. Instead of the constant wrangling and attempts to undermine the UN, critics ought to look for opportunities to strengthen and improve the already fundamental role played by the United Nations. Reference Baliboola, I, 2010, Role of Untied Nations in the Promotion and Maintaince of International Peace and Security, Retrieved on June, 4, 2011 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/33327834/Role-of-United-Nations-in-Promotion-and-Maintainance-of-Peace-and-Security Bryden,A, Caparini,M & Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces , 2006,Private Actors and Security Governance, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces Series, LIT Verlag Münster. Doyle, M & Sambanis, N, 2006, Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations, Princeton University Press, 2006 Marien, M, 1987, Future Survey Annual, Transaction Publishers.  Patnaik, S.K, Baral, J.K & Sharma, J.P, 2004, United Nations, India and the New World Order, Mittal Publications. Ryan, S, 2000, The United Nations and International Politics Studies in Contemporary History, Palgrave Macmillan. Thakur, R.C, 2006, The United Nations, Peace and Security: From Collective Security to the Responsibility to Protect, Cambridge University Press. Tremblay, R, 2003, Just War Theory, Retrieved on June 7, 2011 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_3_63/ai_101261140/                 Read More