When examining the organizations revolving around international peace, cooperation and diplomacy, there are none more prevalent than that of the United Nations. Established at the closing of World War II, the United Nations is composed of 193 countries and independent states, the vast majority of countries on earth, and operates globally to further these causes. However, when one looks to the past of organizations with similar goals, and even through the record of the United Nations itself, it begins to raise the question, is the effectiveness of the United Nations beginning to wane, and if so will this trend continue in the future. In looking through said historical cases, it seems the answer is yes.
To begin, the United Nation's future is difficult to predict due to the fast paced changes in the global scape, however when predicting the events of the future it is often pertinent to look at similar occurrences in the past. In this case, the history of the natural precursor to the United Nations, the League of Nations, may offer some answers to whether the United Nations will remain effective in the future.
 |
| The League of Nations Council (Above) at a security meeting. The size of the council, and amount of leaders present serves to prove that the downfall of the League of Nations was not based on a lack of power, but rather a lack of solidarity when an issue that could have considerable ramifications arose. |
[Image: History Help: http://historyhelp.co.uk/index.php/igcse/international-relations/the-league-of-nations ]
The League of Nations operated for years as the United Nations now does, and did much good when handling relatively small global issues, as the United Nations does now. However, when world war two broke out, the League of Nations was reduced to a shell of it’s former self. The cause of this lies in the immediate concern from individual countries at the prospect of large scale conflicts influencing the actions of the League of Nations, rather than continuing to fulfill it’s intended purpose as an international council protecting global peace. This raises the question, will the United Nations remain effective if a large scale war were to break out, or would it be plagued by the fragmentation that afflicted the League of Nations before it in a time of global crisis, resulting in a loss of usefulness.
Again, that is not to say the League of Nations had no success over its years of operation, nor that it did not possess enough power to affect the global landscape. For example, in 1925, the League of Nations orchestrated the withdrawal of Grecian soldiers who invaded Bulgaria over a border dispute. Another example of the League’s initial effectiveness is the legislation that was put in place against slavery in Liberia in the 1930’s. This legislation was a direct result of investigations mandated and carried out by the League of Nations against the American company Firestone, who had been taking advantage of labourers in Liberian factories that produced American goods. These are a few illustrations of the initial capability of the League of Nations, capability that could only occur when the League’s member states banded together, unifying their power through the common pursuit of peace. This partnership however, as time would tell, was one that could only persist in the absence of significant personal threat to the members based on the actions of the council as a whole.
When looking at the loss of strength and solidarity of the League of Nations, the events immediately prior to this are of importance. Immediately before this loss of power, the council failed to solve controversial international disputes. For example, the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. As the Italian army marched into Ethiopia, at the time called Abyssinia, the League of Nations was counted on to solve the conflict. In an attempt to do so, the League of Nations imposed sanctions on Italy, however these sanctions proved to be ineffective overall, due to the fact that they did not ban the sale of oil to Italy. The lack of harsh punishment for this discretion was due to the fact that the leaders of the League of Nations took into consideration the effects this would have on their own countries. They feared that imposing severe sanctions against Italy would drive the Italian leader, Benito Mussolini, into an alliance with Adolf Hitler, an event that later occurred regardless. The fact that the leaders took into account their own national security before the core purpose of the League, to protect and cultivate world peace, contributed to the ensuing loss of power; the leadership, acting with self-interests in mind rather than the collective interest, became increasingly fragmented, further damaging the effectiveness of the League as a whole.
While it is true that this occurred partially due to the actions of a world power like Italy against a small country like Abyssinia, similar events have occurred recently, and just like the League of Nations then, the United Nations has failed to have any real impact on the situations. For example, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and occupation of Crimea, an act that is clearly in violation of the core principles of the United Nations, has generated little to no physical punishment from any of the United Nations security council members. Due to the fact that when this occurred with the League of Nations it was a precursor to loss of significant effectiveness, it may be suggested that the usefulness of the United Nations as a global intermediary and power are drawing to a close.
This inaction can be partially contributed to the misuse of the United Nations Security Council’s veto system, another factor that contributes to the increasing ineffectiveness of the organization. The United Nations Security Council, the branch of the organization that deals with international peace and security, is limited by the fact that all five of the superpowers on the UNSC (China, the United States, Russia, England and France) have the capability to veto any deployment of troops by the United Nations. This makes sense generally, as countries should have a say in what efforts their soldiers are involved in, however when countries have a conflict of interest in the decision at hand, their veto can be used to impede the justice that the United Nations was built upon. This occurred when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014. Any efforts by the United Nations to intervene could be barred by the veto of, in this case, the antagonist of the situation. In recent years the use of this veto system by the members of the security council for illegitimate reasons, namely Russia in situations such as the UNSC’s meetings on the Invasion of Ukraine and Syria, has called into question the usefulness of this system. As it currently stands, the veto system is simply creating stagnation for the personal gain of it’s users, rather than fulfilling its intended purpose.
On another note, when looking into past peacekeeping operations, one can see the lack of real effects the United Nations have had. The Rwandan Genocide in 1994 is a pertinent example of this. When the Hutu forces began to carry out what was decidedly a genocide of the Tutsi people, the United Nations, who had forces present in the country when this occurred, shirked their responsibility to respond to the crisis based on a technicality. They stated that the mass killings of a group were not classified as genocide with the sole reason being that they did not deem the issue important enough to expend resources on. When a group like the UN fails to intervene against the systematic murder of millions of individuals, it calls into question the reliability or even capability of said organization.
 |
| The Image above is of a United Nations Peacekeeper observing the destruction of a village in Rwanda. The fact that the soldier is armed with advanced weaponry highlights the fact that whilst the United Nations had the means to intervene in a meaningful way in Rwanda, they did not. [Image: RTE News: http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0204/502128-rwanda/ ] |
Now whilst the United Nations has completed many successful missions, peacekeeping, humanitarian and otherwise, many important missions have not been successful. In looking to the precursor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, it is demonstrated that when nations have personal agendas within the organization it becomes difficult to run effectively, and when paired with a large scale conflict between world powers, can completely unravel the group. In today’s world, these situations have escalated to far greater heights than in the days of the League of Nations. This is clear due to the growing number of countries with destructive powers, partially due to the increased availability of biological and nuclear weapons, and the conflicts between countries with veto powers in the United Nations Security Council. Overall, when looking into the future of the United Nations, it is difficult to imagine how it could continue to exist in it’s current form.
Works Cited
BBC News. (2015, March 13). Crimea Profile - Overview. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-18287223
The Guardian. (2015, September 23). Russian Vetoes are Putting UN Security Council's Legitimacy at Risk, Says US. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/23/russian-vetoes-putting-un-security-council-legitimacy-at-risk-says-us
United Human Rights Council. (n.d.). Genocide in Rwanda. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide_in_rwanda.htm
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/index.html
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Peacekeeping. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/sc/
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council Members. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/
United States Department of State. (n.d.). League of Nations. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/league
Wikipedia. (n.d.). United Nations. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations
Wikipedia. (n.d.). League of Nations. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
Wikipedia. (n.d.). List of United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions
Wikipedia. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
Wikipedia. (n.d.). United Nations Security Council Veto Power. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Rwandan Genocide. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
I 100% agree with you that the UN has some flaws with the organization, however the state in which you present your facts and arguments seems to me like you think the idea of a peacekeeping group useless. I however feel that a peacekeeping group is a great idea that many folks should stand by it, I understand if you do think that trying to peace keep is useless but if you don't I would like to here about what you would do differently, to say run a grand scale organization with 193 country's,that all want to look after themselves and allies. It's to my belief that once you think about this you may find it harder to do then it looks, and while all wars are going on and conflicts are breaking out decisions need to be made, there is no easy way out of anything that happens between country's and the grand nations of our world.
ReplyDeleteI in no way believe that peacekeeping groups are useless, I'm simply suggesting that the united nations is often not fulfilling its original purpose. The usefulness of of an organization is based on it's capability to perform it's intended purpose, and as I detailed above, the United Nations does not always successfully do so.
ReplyDeleteI in no way believe that peacekeeping groups are useless, I'm simply suggesting that the united nations is often not fulfilling its original purpose. The usefulness of of an organization is based on it's capability to perform it's intended purpose, and as I detailed above, the United Nations does not always successfully do so.
ReplyDeleteJosh this is an excellent article. You’ve made extremely strong points, and I love that you have supported them with examples throughout the past 100 years such as Rwanda, Ethiopian invasion of 1935, and Russia invading Ukraine in… well they’ve invaded Ukraine too many times to count. It’s important to look at how effective something can be if we look into the past, and I really liked how you brought that up.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I do have to criticize a few things. The League of Nations was formed after the First World War, to prevent another catastrophic, and devastating war. While we all know this failed (drastically), it's important to look even beyond the The First World War. Before WW1 there was always a war going on. Of course, many of these wars were nowhere near as destructive and altering as WW1, but of course it was during the First World War when war changed from being something that was full of honour, into something that was brutal, and destructive. Before there had been rules to war, but the Gas used at Ypres in 1915 changed how wars were fought. These horrifying acts on humanity were why the Allied countries formed The League of Nations, so they could prevent such horrific occurrences from happening again. While I think the League of Nations were entirely ineffective due to their hatred for Germany (and I mean, World War Two happened, which was more destructive, and more deadly), they did allow for the groundwork of the United Nations, which is the act of peacekeeping.
The UN has called out many acts against humanity since its creation, some being not just in the more Eastern countries, but in Western ones as well (i.e. Canada has been criticized for years over its treatment of its Native People). The role of the UN is to be a peaceful organization, that is about speaking up for those who don’t have a voice. Its also important to recognize that this Union isn’t necessarily an army. An army is something that applies to one country individually, but the UN is a collection of well trained soldiers from a wide range of countries. They are there to act as caregivers, and have performed many acts of well performed humanitarian acts. For example the Suez Crisis was a successful mission that avoided a bloody meltdown that may have occurred if UN Peacekeepers hadn’t been sent in to assist (thanks Pearson!).
While I think the UN is very effective in calling out acts against humanity, I think that bringing up Rwanda is a very strong point. How can the UN call out the acts of genocide, but not get involved in protecting the victims of such an event. Although their presence ultimately ended the genocide, 800 000 Tutsis were killed during the 100 day standoff. How long can we ‘fight’ if we are waging armies of peace? I think you make an excellent point of calling out the UN for being ineffective when it comes to acts of genocide, such as the Rwanda disaster. I think that there has to come to a point when violence must be used to protect the greater majority of people, as sometimes it is the only way to win in a situation such as Rwanda.
All in all Josh, I’d say your blog post was my second favourite (cause obviously mine is the best), and was very well written, and very informative. Good job man!