Why has United Nations been more successful than League of Nations - Essay Example

Why has United Nations been more successful than League of Nations? Introduction Any comparison between the two international bodies as League of Nations and United Nations can be done only by tracing their origin. In order to amply answer the thesis question, one needs to analyze in details the prevailing world situation when these two bodies were formed. One needs to appreciate that both the bodies were formed in the aftermath of World Wars that ravaged a large part of the developed world when nations tired of war were thinking of some permanent solution to banish war for ever from the face of the earth. The nations thought of creating some international supervisory body that would mediate and diffuse tensions that might brew between nations and ensure that such tensions never spill over into full fledged armed conflict. The bane of war was very much realized by all the combatants what with European economy in tatters after the savagery and mindless destruction that was unleashed during the two World Wars. It seemed that all parties concerned had come to their senses and have realized the hard way that war can never be a solution; one war inevitably leads to other wars more savage and more ferocious than the previous one. The stage was set, as one would assume, for the creation of one such international body at the end of First World War. This body would, or at least those who took leading part in its formation thought so, would be an international mediator that would diffuse the glowing embers of a potential armed confrontation before it turned into an uncontrollable inferno (Knock, 1995). Inception of League of Nations By mid-December 1918 World War I was practically over, the shooting part, that is, and USS George Washington was approaching French coastline with US President Woodrow Wilson on board. The President was buoyant with notions of setting up a world order that would usher in everlasting peace in world. The idea and mission was surely a laudable one but little did the President know of the pitfalls that lay ahead in implementing his grandiose and eminently lofty plans that would prevent forever any war from erupting into a frenzy of genocide and destruction. This effort of his earned him the Nobel Prize for peace in 1919 but Wilson was perhaps not aware that his allies were determined that Germany atone for her sins by paying heavily and were in no mood to forgive and forget and start afresh. But why blame only the European nations? Many Americans also feared that the birth of any multinational body like the League of Nations would take on the role of a global monitor and prevent member nations from pursuing their independent foreign policies. This strain of isolationism had pervaded foreign policy relations of United States right from its arrival on the international scene as a power of consequence. This trait perhaps had a direct link with its geographical location being bound on either sides by oceans and thus not having to share boundaries with equally powerful nations as most European countries had to. Canada on the north and Mexico on the south were so inferior in military and economic strength as compared to itself that United States had never faced the predicament of dealing with a prickly and potentially dangerous neighbor. Hence, the general feeling among American public was not favorable towards the formation of an international body. They, instead, felt their independence in charting their foreign policy course to be much more important than engaging in some sort of understanding and compromise with fellow developed countries so that a World war is never repeated. League of Nations thus started its journey amid much misgivings and mutual distrust and was doomed perhaps even before it was formally brought into being (Lerner, 2004). United States of America had staunchly maintained its neutrality for the first three years of the First World War but as German submarines started targeting American commercial liners; US began to directly feel the heat of the war that was being waged on the other side of Atlantic. Public sentiment was also steadily rising to a crescendo in favor of American involvement in the fight against Germany and finally on 6th April, 1917 US joined the First World War with nearly a million US troops sailing across the Atlantic to join the Allied forces in their fight against Germany. But Woodrow Wilson was clear right from the beginning that US involvement in this War would be for ushering in and strengthening democracy in Europe and preventing the possibility of any future conflagration of this scale. In January, 1918, when the War was still raging in full fury, Wilson put forward his fourteen point formula that he hoped would bring in permanent peace in the developed world. The last pint of Wilson’s formula was his long cherished dream of setting up a League of Nations that would play the role of an international arbiter with the express objective of maintaining harmony and peace among nations of the world. Such an association would guarantee independence and territorial sovereignty of all nations – both great and small – and would thus automatically prevent any future international hostilities. One must understand that with the loss of nearly ten million soldiers and literally uncountable number of civilians and a completely shattered infrastructure European nations did feel the need of a similar international arbitrator. But as has been throughout human history, victors thought it to be their prerogative to completely crush those that have been defeated not so much as to put a final seal on their victory but more as an exhibition of their arrogance and perhaps hurt pride and certainly to teach a suitable lesson to those that dared to attack them (Alexander, 1924). Flames of revenge Burning desire to extract revenge on Germany had become an all consuming passion among victorious European nations and any thought of moderation or conciliation was far from their minds. All efforts of Woodrow Wilson proved futile as the victors set forth in drafting the Treaty of Versailles. Georges Clemenceau, the French Premier was determined to ensure that Germany went bankrupt and helpless by vastly shrinking its territory and making it totally weak on military front. British Prime Minister, David George was also in a similar frame of mind. Wilson, felt that such extreme vindictiveness, though would pamper to the jingoistic sentiments of victorious nations, would fuel enormous resentment among German population and hurt their pride no end. Wilson had the farsightedness to realize that such sense of deprivation and hurt would surely provoke extreme German reaction sooner rather than later and were in effect seeds of future armed confrontation that would be much more severe than the one Europe had just now witnessed. Wilson could do precious little to alleviate the vindictive attitude of France and Britain and he finally agreed to the demands of these countries provided they agreed to his idea of League of Nations because he still believed that such an international forum would be able to reduce future hostilities among nations to a very great extent and would also be able to counter the injustices that have found their way in the Treaty of Versailles (McCollum, 2003). Problems of Woodrow Wilson As Wilson set on his return journey to United States he felt reasonably assured that his dream of having a committee of nations is finally going to be a reality. But he did not foresee the pulls and pressures of US domestic politics. Wilson, a Democrat, expected landslide victories of Democrats in Senate and Congress elections but the reverse happened with Republicans winning majority in both the houses. Wilson faced a problem that he was not quite prepared for. Still he hoped Republicans who were steadily supporting him in his war efforts would also support him in his effort to set up of League of Nations. But, Henry Cabot Lodge, who had both personal and political differences with Wilson, spearheaded Republican opposition to Wilson’s attempt to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in both houses. Wilson required a two-thirds majority for ratification which, in spite of his best attempts, he just could not muster. Lodge’s main concern was with tenth clause of the League of Nations’ covenant which detailed the modalities of supply of troops by member nations in the event of an international crisis. No matter how hard Wilson tried, Lodge was successful in planting suspicion and apprehension in the minds of the members of both the houses about the possibility of the League dragging United States in a war that it might on its own would have had no reason to get involved in. These misplaced apprehensions prevented United States from becoming a member of League of Nations and lending its formidable economic and military might to the newly established international forum. It hardly needs any reiteration that the absence of US hugely diminished the efficacy and authority of League of Nations right from the moment of its formal inception (Bassett, 1930). Was League of Nations totally ineffective? Nonetheless, the League of Nations started operating from Geneva from January 10, 1920 with thirty member nations. In all fairness it must be said that it did provide certain international legislations on ban of use of chemical weaponry in war fields and set out the norms of modern warfare in accordance with the tenets of Geneva Convention. It could also diffuse tensions between smaller member nations on two to three occasions. The Health wing of the League did commendable jobs in spreading awareness about the necessity of proper and timely vaccinations, safe hospital practices and ways and means to curb the spread of tuberculosis and venereal diseases. Most importantly, League implemented for the first time the concept of an international congress of nations and laid down norms of international diplomacy. However, its attempts to halt the spread of Nazism, Fascism and Communism through diplomacy failed miserably and within the next twenty years the whole world was again thrown into the vortex of another far more devastating World War. Inception of United Nations As Europe was engulfed in the flames of Second World War, the folly of the harshness of Treaty of Versailles was brought into a bitter focus and America also realized the mistake it had committed when it refused Woodrow Wilson to have his way with League of Nations. America was not prepared to repeat the same mistake and on 1st January, 1942, when the Second World War was raging with brutal ferocity, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt spearheaded the codification of a declaration that signaled the birth of United Nations, a conglomerate of twenty six nations, which pledged to fight together the Axis forces. When the guns finally fell silent in 1945, fifty nations (Poland was initially not there but very shortly entered the select group to increase the number of nations to fifty one) gathered together at United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco to formalize the charter of United Nations. It was surely not a novel concept – League of Nations had already been a reality but the member states were now wiser after the carnage of Second World War and were all the more eager to put in place a world body that would ensure that there is no repetition of such mindless destruction and violence. In particular, United States who did not become a member of League of Nations was one of the founding members of this new world order. United Nations formally came into existence on 24th October, 1945 when United States, Soviet Union, France, United Kingdom and China and a vast majority of other assembled nations ratified the UN Charter. The first General Assembly of United Nations sat on 10th January, 1946 in Central Hall, Westminster; London where all fifty one members were present. Within the next fourteen days, on 24th January, 1946, General Assembly adopted its first resolution which directed use of atomic energy only for peaceful purposes and exhorted elimination of all nuclear weapons that were capable of unleashing mass destruction (Miller, 1990). How effective has the United Nations been? That was the beginning and much water has flown down Hudson since then. It would surely be in the fitness of things to take stock of the quantum of success that this organization has achieved since its birth amidst publicity blitz and high hopes. United States was the only superpower when United Nations came into existence and US quite obviously used this international body to propagate its pet ideas of economic development and freedom from external aggression as the two paramount rights of any sovereign state. But things changed rather drastically with reemergence of Soviet Union as another super power in the world arena. The lofty principles that were the foundation stones of United Nations gradually receded in importance with only lip service given to these by member nations as the world body got ridden with factionalism and dissidence as Cold War gripped the world. The fissures became deeper with each passing day and at one point of time doubts were raised about the very existence of this world body. Ideological confrontation became more severe with strategic interests of superpowers ruling supreme over the original altruistic mandate of United Nations (Inoguchi, 1999). Development assistances became a potent tool for ideological propaganda and, by taking refuge behind the concept of territorial rights of member nations, superpowers fought proxy wars in all corners of the world. This was surely not the world that United Nations charter had described. But things took a turn for the better with cessation of Cold War during 1989-1990 and United Nations got one more chance to return to its original mandate (Kaufmann, 1980). But even during the stark days of Cold War, notwithstanding its limitations, United Nations surely grew in stature and it would be grossly unfair to deny its due. United Nations has played a decisive role in limiting colonization since its very inception. It has also codified various important international statutes and actively propagated observance of human rights throughout the world. Not only this, but United Nations has also organized several highly effective conventions on world economic development and laid down norms and procedures in several areas of human activity. All this surely cannot be ignored and one has to admit that United Nations has not become as irrelevant as the earlier League of Nations had become. But what is most important is that United Nations has grown in all these years as the only forum where Third World countries could have interactions with developed countries on an equal footing. This is an enormous opportunity for the Third World countries that are trying that much harder to improve their economic lot. United Nations provided these developing countries a platform where they could discuss matters related to aids and assistances without the familiar restrictive conditions on freedom of determining direction and content of foreign trade and fiscal systems that are routinely imposed by donor countries during bilateral negotiations. This provided an unprecedented degree of independence and also a huge sense of dignity to the developing nations of the Third World. In spite of the meagerness of their financial and military might, they also started getting the due importance as a member of the world order (Paschke, 1996). It is but obvious that United Nations means different things to different countries. While for United States, the only remaining superpower of the world, United Nations is only an option, a political tool and not the ultimate recourse for foreign policy determination. It might take along United Nations with it and it might not if it feels involvement of United Nations would be an unnecessary encumbrance in conducting its immediate foreign policy objectives. One cannot really blame United States for its attitude as it is really difficult to work within a framework of multinational consensus that requires patience and restraint when a country knows that it is much stronger economically and militarily than all other member nations. But does that mean United States has gained nothing by remaining a member of United Nations? The answer is a firm and unequivocal ‘no’. Had the United Nations not been there, United States would have suffered considerably due to the unstable relations between the North and the South and its economy would have had to face the consequences of tariff barriers that would have been decidedly biased against its exports. United Nations played the role of the arbiter and balancing factor that did not let the North South differences increase into a full-fledged trade war (Bull, 1977). Conclusion – Why United Nations is still very much relevant As things stand now, global problems are multiplying perhaps at an exponential rate and, with globalization taking firm roots, any upheaval at any corner of the world is bound to have its repercussions in all bourses across the world. This is surely a matter of grave concern for world trade and commerce. In this scenario, United States, no matter how powerful it might be, would not be able to tackle the global situation single handedly and a world body must be in place to tackle international emergencies. Recent experiences of United States in Afghanistan and Iraq are glowing examples that underline the need for United Nations for all times to come. Though it has not been as effective as its charter had mandated, it surely has not met the inglorious fate of League of Nations. References Alexander, H. G. (1924). The Revival of Europe. London: G. Allen & Unwin Ltd. Bassett, J. S. (1930). The League of Nations: A Chapter in World Politics. New York: Longmans, Green. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society. New York: Oxford University Press. Inoguchi, T. (1999). The United Nations' role in global security: Peace builder or peace enforcer? In M. Alagappa, & T. Inoguchi (eds.), International Security Management and the United Nations (pp. 1-18). New York: United Nations University Press. Kaufmann, J. (1980). United Nations Decision-Making . Rockville, MD: Sijthoff and Noordhoff. Knock, T. A. (1995). To End All Wars. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Lerner, A. W. (2004). League of Nations. In Encyclopedia of Espionage, Intelligence, and Security. Gale Group Inc. McCollum, S. (2003). The first United Nations: "a tragedy of disappointment": after World War I, President Wilson helped create the League of Nations to avoid future wars. Then the U.S. all but doomed it. In New York Times Upfront. New York: Scholastic Incorporated. Miller, L. H. (1990). Global Order: Values and Power in International Politics. Boulder: Westview Press. Paschke, K. T. (1996). The United Nations at 50: Celebration and Reflection . Article Title: The United Nations at 50: Celebration and Reflection. Contributors:Domes. Volume: 5. Issue: 1 , 1-6. Read More