This past October 24 was the 62nd anniversary of the United Nations. This supranational organization has faced many different situations under a number of secretary-generals. Where is the U.N. heading and how is its effectiveness? Before I can answer this question, I will briefly discuss two supranational predecessors. As a note, you may also want to read Emma's blog post, Why Obama should celebrate U.N. Day.
I will begin by mentioning how three key supranational organizations were established after a major war. The first attempt was the Holy Alliance, which was created after the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 by Czar Alexander I of Russia. This was a coalition that also include Austria and Prussia. As in its name, this alliance aimed at restoring the balance of power in Europe with bestowing Christian principles to establish peace. It worked toward eliminating revolutionary tendencies (i.e., The French Revolution) and maintaining the monarchal status. All the community members in Europe joined, except for Great Britain, the Vatican, and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Then, in 1818, Great Britain and France joined to strengthen the Congress of Vienna (ending the Napoleonic Wars), but it would become nonexistent by 1825 with the death of Czar Alexander. The major unraveling was a conflict of territorial interest between Great Britain, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire.
A little more than a hundred years later, after the First World War, the League of Nations was established to handle the new world order following the defeat of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria). British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey seemed to have developed the idea, and it was pushed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson - although the U.S. would not become a member. President Wilson’s Fourteen Points became the center of the League of Nations. It would last until the start of the Second World War. The League of Nations was the most democratic in the voting procedure, but this weakness would show between the gravities of Great Britain and France. They eventually would unravel the organization over the issue of the balance of power concerning the future of Germany. Simply, France preferred a weakened Germany to strengthen its own security and power, while Great Britain wanted to rebuild Germany to re-balance European power. This would also contribute to their failure in addressing the rising of the Axis Powers. During the inter-war years, Germany, Italy, and Japan cleverly challenged the existing order established by the Paris Peace Conference through implementing the very idea of Wilsonian principle concerning self-determination. This led Germany to acquire the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia along with other previous European interest-entanglements, which led Japan to successfully take Manchuria (China) in 1931. The Axis Powers manipulated this weakness until it became a matter of survival, and Europe was engulfed in war - thus, the beginnings of the Second World War.
Toward the end of World War II, the Allies began to work toward the establishment of the United Nations (U.N.). It focused on correcting the weakness of the League of Nations and the prevention of another world war. It set up a number of different bodies, which currently includes the General Assembly, Security Council, Secretariat, World Health Organization (WHO), and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) among others. The U.N. has faced many issues concerning conflicts, poverty, the environment along with others. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has been the most successful. Another example is its successfully garnered support to act against North Korea (i.e., The Korean War) - due to Soviet abstainment - and Iraq (i.e., The First Persian Gulf War).
Now, back to the question - where is the United Nations heading and how is its effectiveness? Well, the U.N. results have been mixed. Beside the successes mentioned above, it has been unsuccessful, at the present moment, in establishing a true cleaner environmental front as it advocated at the Conference on the Human Environment (1972) and Earth Summit (1992) - to name a few. It also has been challenged behind approving the creation of the State of Israel and failure to enforce the resolutions after the Six Day War in 1967. In recent time, it has been unsuccessful in Somalia - "Black Hawk Down" being a pinnacle moment in this mission - along with the Rwandan genocide in 1994 and the Yugoslavian secession (ex: UNESCO world heritage site Dubrovnik [Croatia] leading to damage of historical sites and the Srebrenica safe zone intrusion [Bosnia-Herzegovina] leading to a great massacre). Some critics have labeled the initiation of the Iraq War as a failure, as well. Some current challenges include the Darfur region of Sudan, negotiating the future of Kosovo, and curbing conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Many critics have pointed the failure to act on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). As a rule, the permanent members, which includes China, France, Great Britain, Russia, and the United States, can use a veto to cease creating a particular resolution. During the Cold War, the U.S. and the Soviet Union have used a number of vetoes. Because of its ineffectiveness, the power-shift progressed to the General Assembly to the Secretariat back to the Security Council. In recent times, the permanent members have continued to use its veto power to protect its interests. The challenges faced concerning the future of Kosovo and Darfur falls into this category.
Where is the U.N. heading? Does it need reformation? I will address that each of the international organizations created beginning with the Holy Alliance has faced the problem with the conflict of interests. Many critics have called for reform in hopes of reducing this imperfection. One proposal is to add more permanent members into the UNSC. Will this necessarily solve the issue or will it multiply it? I leave these questions for the reader to decide, since this is even complex for the author to conclude. So, I leave the future of the U.N. to debate. What other ideas are or could be part of a possible reform? I hope this will begin a lively discussion.
To view my other commentaries, click here.
Comments are closed for this post.
