The Case for the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century - Essay Example

The Case for the United Nations in the Twenty-first Century Introduction This paper will critically evaluate the case for the United Nations in the 21st Century. The paper will begin with a brief outline of the United Nations’ origin, its main function as well as its core structures, and their functions. Secondly, the paper will critically evaluate the case for the United Nations’ alleged ‘joint collaboration’ with the African Union in enhancing peace enforcement within African region. Thirdly, the paper will critically assess the humanitarian intervention in the UN’s charter and in some African regional structures such as the ECOWAS. Fourthly, the paper will look into the Rwandan genocide, which is termed as the greatest failure of the United Nations. Subsequently, the paper will also assess the UN’s involvement in provision of asylum for the ever-rising number of refugees in Africa. Lastly, the paper will conclude by a brief summary of the United Nations’ overall functions in attainment of its goals. However, United Nations just like any other organization is prone to glitches, especially when those running the show refuse to prioritize the organization’s core objectives. The UN (United Nations) was founded in 1945 October 24th by 51 states dedicated to maintaining peace via international collaboration and joint security. Currently, almost every state globally, is a member of UN. The UN (United Nations) has 6 main structures. The General Assembly is a parliament of states that meets often and in distinct conferences to envision the globe's most critical problems. The Security Council prime duty is to maintain international security and peace. The Economic and Social Council, underneath the total power of the General Assembly, directs the social and economic work of the United Nations. The Trusteeship Council responsibility is to provide global supervision for the eleven Trust Regions controlled by 7 Member Countries, and guarantee that suitable steps are engaged to concoct the Regions for sovereignty. The Secretariat performs the administrative and substantive work of the UN as guided by the Security Council, General Assembly as well as other structures. The International Court of Justice, similarly referred to as the World Court, is the focal judicial structure of the United Nations (Baylis 2011). Following an era of unsuccessful peacekeeping undertakings around Africa at the culmination of the 20th century, the UN (United Nations) has been obligated to re-assess its task as a global establishment for conflict resolve. In the freshly reformulated AU (African Union), the United Nations appears to have established a dependable regional confederate to aid and share the responsibility of peacekeeping upon the continent. Nevertheless, while joint peace enforcement initiatives amid the United Nations and regional allies are progressively sought as keys for culminating several of Africa’s most wicked wars. One has to doubt whether there exists an even-handed distribution of duties between establishments, or whether the United Nations is permitting its enthusiastic counterparts to embark on the dangerous duties of peacekeeping without the necessary logistical and financial backing in return (Baylis 2011). The post-Cold Warfare era was a phase of critical learning for the UN. In a progressively complex global security background, where traditional methods of brokering reconciliation were not sufficient for culminating chaotic internal intra-state skirmishes, the United Nations was enforced to re-assess its function as an international peace enforcement establishment. Stinging let-downs in nations like Somalia, Angola and Rwanda were ample to drive the blue helmets flinching from the Africa continent, hesitant to impulsively enter into engagements where peace is required to be vigorously enforced, not just held. Certainly, even a report by Brahimi issued in 2000, and broadly viewed as an important account of the United Nations’ challenges and progress steering into the 21st era acknowledge this. Brahimi articulate that memories of peace enforcers killed in Kigali and Mogadishu, and taken captive in Sierra Leone, aid to clarify the troubles Member Countries are have in persuading their national governments and the community that they ought to support the positioning of their militaries to UN-led operations, predominantly in Africa (Vogt 2008). With developed countries presenting a clear repulsion to peace enforcement initiatives in Africa, some regional establishments like ECOWAS (the Economic Community of West African States) and the SADC (Southern African Development Community) stepped forward to fill up the security void on the region. Most lately, the AU (African Union) surfaced with a directive signalling a genuine intention to interpose in conflict regions, and take up the lead function in brokering reconciliation in the expanse. With newfound allies in the fight to arbitrate the culmination to overwhelming internal conflicts in the African continent, the United Nations saw a prospect to establish a new policy for the organization, which encompassed a greater dependence on joint peace enforcement ventures with the regional establishments. The United Nations was not solo in its opinion: regional establishments also encompassed the notion of cooperating to tackle security trepidations in the expanse. Once the AU (African Union) was formed in 2001 for instance, its membership clearly advocated for a solid partnership for security and peace between the African Union and the United Nations in its charter (Kibble 2005). Utilizing the economic concept of comparative benefit to the notion of joint peace enforcement ventures, Margaret Vogt clarifies that, local groups hold specific assets, which worldwide organizations do not possess, and vice versa; through working jointly, each establishment can aid complement the other to render peacekeeping initiatives significantly more efficient. Joint peacekeeping initiatives in countries like Sierra Leone and Liberia, for example, have shown that regional establishments – compared to their international equals – tend to display solid political will as well as a capability to act swiftly when clashes break out. Nonetheless, they have a shortage in a bit of the knowhow, status and resources that an organization like the United Nations enjoys. The United Nations, conversely, with its exceptional logistical expertise and financial means, has extremely fallen short upon political resolution and administrative competence, which has deterred its ability to act quickly in conditions of intrastate warfare. In totality, together, the organizations carry definite assets that render collaboration a rational and appropriate choice for intricate, complicated peace initiatives in the current day (Vogt 2008). In its brief eleven-year history, the African Union has already determined an unmistakable need to take superior accountability for stability within the region via its swift spreading out of troops to Somalia, Darfur and Burundi - three extremely volatile regions of conflict. In spite of resilient political will as well as logistical closeness to war-zones, conversely, the truth remains that the African Union does not have the resources, training, and logistical expertise to accomplish complex peacekeeping undertakings without substantial foreign support. Luckily, where the AU (African Union) is deficient, the UN (United Nations) can reimburse. With an unsurpassed pool of capability from which to access, and to draw outstanding martial and technical backing via its member countries, the United Nations is well-resourced to afford African Union armed forces with the necessary support to realize its obligations in the region. Nevertheless, herein rests the difficulty: if we acknowledge that the United Nations’ comparative benefit rests in catalysing essential resources for peace enforcement missions, whereas the African Union’s lies on swift deployment upon conflict regions, why, then, do we witness African troops spread out into perilous conditions without the necessary backing close by? This is a violation of the central principle inherent within the comparative benefit rationale of joint responsibility (Jackson 2009). In each of the three African Union peace enforcement ventures, the United Nations together with its associates has revealed an astounding laxity in affording adequate backing for its regional equals. In Burundi, for instance, the AU (African Union) deployed a peace enforcement troops to a highly precarious conflict region, with barely no outside assistance up to when the United Nations itself seized over the taskforce a year later on. Besides, facing substantial delays in positioning two-thirds of the forces because of a deficiency of resources, African Union forces were charged with cantoning opposing forces for disbandment without a sufficient supply of shelter and foodstuff for themselves and the injured soldiers too. The initial African Union mission in Darfur was so very under-resourced that forces became heavily reliant on local Sudanese administration officials for essential supplies and shelter. African forces continue to be afflicted with effective equipment deficiencies following 3 years of powerlessly observing massacre being carried out around them(Heywood 2010). Additionally, in Somalia – in which the picture of US militaries being hauled through the boulevards of Mogadishu 1993 even now remains intensely imprinted in people’s thoughts – there is slight present-day anticipation that significant worldwide military backing will be afforded to strengthen another susceptible African Union force. The accounts of these 3 peacekeeping undertakings reveal an extremely inequitable association between the United Nations and the African Union. While, the African Union has readily concurred to deploy forces to help settle destructive, lengthy conflicts in the expanse. The global community has constantly avoided its logistical and financial pledges to back these endeavours, hence making “shared” efforts amid the UN and AU appear less like partnership and more as a lopsided resolution, with the latter doing the majority of the effort of peacekeeping (Heywood 2010). The privilege to employ humanitarian intervention can be located in the treaty law, as well as the Genocide Convention, UN Charter and the International Customary Law, though stipulations are found similarly in other channels, as well as the AU’s Charter. The United Nations Charter is frequently perceived to be the utmost important vehicle in establishing whether humanitarian intervention is admissible within international decree. The United Nations Charter seemingly restricts humanitarian intervention by barring the usage of force within interstate associations and necessitating member countries to cease in their worldwide associations from the use or threat of force contrary to the political independence or territorial integrity of any country, or within any other way incompatible with the Resolutions of the UN. Nevertheless, the charter’s Article 39 sanctions the Security Council to establish the existence of breach of the concord, a threat to the concord, or act of hostility and to resolve actions which are requisite to reinstate international security and peace. The General Assembly could recommend actions to uphold international security and peace unless the Security Council is pondering the same issue (Brown 2008). In such a circumstance, the General Assembly has to obtain a direct appeal from the Security Council to envision the matter. Nevertheless, under emergency distinctive conferences, the General Assembly can endorse collective actions to member countries, if the Security Council does not exercise its prime duty of maintaining international security and peace in any circumstance where there seems to be a danger to the concord, violation of the concord, or a deed of hostility. In the UN Charter, local establishments have the power to react to circumstances that intimidate international security and peace with the endorsement by the Security Council. The ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) in 1990 interceded in Liberia, in disregard of the UN charter. Instead of condemning this deed as a risky precedent, the United Nations acclaimed ECOWAS’s involvement in the Security Council declaration 788. In 1998, similarly ECOWAS’s unofficial involvement in Sierra Leone was acclaimed too (Baylis 2011). African Union’s first intercessions transpired in 2003 when Ethiopia, South Africa and Mozambique spread out forces to Burundi with no UN sanction. Conversely, the United Nations Security Council in 2004 acclaimed the function of the African Union involvement, without endorsement of the intervention. The UN Security Council’s commendation can be viewed, in any case, as tacit endorsement, although queries remain concerning precisely what the United Nations was commending: the involvement of the African Union role afterwards. The actuality that not a single thing was articulated concerning the African Union’s un-authorized deeds, in similar manner to a couple of un-sanctioned ECOWAS intercessions, will in imminent give credibility to the notion that prior United Nations sanction is not completely necessary (Francis 2008). The United Nations bears certain moral duty for the Rwandan massacre. The United Nations desisted from interceding in Rwanda due to self-centeredness. The United Nations could have played out to interject the massacre in two approaches. The least intense, and most viable (if politically subtle) approach was to forcefully present the ethical case for engagement by member countries to the UN Security Council and that would have made it possible for more than a small force on the base in Kigali. The availability of a sufficiently armed UN force, instead of the actual usage of power, was an attested deterrent to Rwanda genocide. Yet, when the backups were most required, the UN Security Council lessened the forces from twenty five thousand to a mere two hundred solders, a force hardly able to defend itself, leave alone daunt thousands of slaughterers (Vogt 2008). By the culmination of 2010, there existed some 340,000 people of interest to UNHCR within Southern Africa, together with roughly 146,000 immigrants, 193,000 refuge-seekers as well as 700 returnees. Varied migratory movements to Southern Africa (SA) from the Horn of Africa as well as the Great Lakes Expanse continue to present a substantial challenge. Awareness of economic prospect attracts asylum-seekers, refugees and immigrants alike, making them susceptible to exploitation. However, the UNHCR is working with appropriate investors to devise protection-sensitive national and regional sanctuary and immigration policies and systems. The purpose is to tackle the growing occurrence of varied migratory flows to Southern Africa from other camps in Malawi and Mozambique. Economic constraints encountered by governments within the region restrict the extent of resources obtainable for migrant protection (Salmon 2010). Conclusively, preserving global world harmony is a fundamental resolution of the UN. Under the Commission, Member Countries agree to resolve disputes via peaceful methods and cease from terrorizing and employing violence against other countries. Throughout the years, the United Nations has performed a major function in aiding defuse global emergencies and in settling protracted clashes. It has embarked on complex missions involving peacekeeping, peace-making and humanitarian aid. It has functioned to avert conflicts from erupting. Moreover, after warfare, it has progressively taken on action to tackle the root grounds of warfare and place the basis for long-lasting peace. However, things do not turn out as they are planned and just like any organization, UN too has in one way or another encountered difficulty in trying to accomplish its goals. Some of its efforts have been unsuccessful in most parts, for instance, its laxity in backing the African Union in peace enforcement missions, whereas others have borne fruits. The 21st century has been a challenge to the UN since some of its member states have been questioning its importance and especially within the African states. UN and the international community laxity in affording assistance to affected states when conflicts arise may have aided this. United Nations must trace back its steps, establish, and strengthen its relationship and undertakings within the Africa continent. If not, its role may seem insignificant and especially in the 21st century nations, which are well informed and they are aware of, and have a better understanding of the world politics(Powell 2006). United Nations needs to device operational policies that will see it through in attainment of its vision, mission, and objectives and reinstate back its role as the world’s peace enforcement entity. References Baylis, John2011,The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations,OUP Oxford. Brown, Chris 2008, Understanding International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan. Francis, David 2009, Dangers of Co-Deployment: UN Co-operativePeacekeeping In Africa, Ashgate Publishing Company,Burlington. Heywood, Andrew 2010,Global Politics, Palgrave Macmillan. Jackson, Robert 2009,Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, . Kibble, S 2005, “Conflict, Peace and Development: Rights and Human Security In Africa, Retrieved fromPambazuka News Website, Powell, K 2006, The African Union’s Emerging Peace and Security Regime: Opportunities And Challenges for Delivering on The Responsibility To Protect, Institute for Security Studies. Salmon, Trevor 2010, Issues in the International Relations,Palgrave Macmillan. Vogt, Margaret 2008, Co-operation Between the UN and the OAU in the Management of African Conflicts, Institute for Strategic Studies. Read More