Main Roles of the United Nations - Essay Example

Main roles of the United Nations Charted in 1945 by 51 countries, the intent of the United Nations (UN)was to provide a forum for the nations of the world to congregate as a means to promote world peace. This number has grown to 191 today, practically every country. The charter members recognized that economic interdependence was an essential factor for assuring stability and preserving peace (United Nation, 2004: 3). Globalization, trading and communication between the nations of the world was necessary in achieving their goal as is encouraging democracy. They understood that dictatorships, closed societies and theocracies were not conducive to economic growth and cooperation between nations. Economic instability and imperialistic tendencies led to WWI and WWII, a fact not lost on the founding nations of the UN. The Security Council, the most influential component of the UN is responsible for preserving international security. Comprised of 15 member nations, five of which, the UK, US, Russia, China and France are permanent members, the Security Council convenes whenever it considers a threat to world peace exists. The UN General Assembly, all member nations, gathers at regular intervals to deliberate international problems (“The United Nations”, 2007). Recent and continuing issues addressed by the UN include alleviating world hunger and disease, reducing child deaths, protecting the civil rights, language and culture of indigenous peoples of the world and confronting global warming, AIDS, the genocide in Sudan, victims of natural disasters and war crimes among many other topics (UN News Service, 2007). No one can debate that the formation of the UN has provided relief and stabilisation for millions of the world’s population over the past 60 years. However, many rightfully question the ability of this international organisation to successfully manage present and future adverse scenarios. The power of the UN to stop imperialist actions was put in serious doubt when it could not stop the US from invading a sovereign country that did not initiate military conflict. The genocide in Darfur, Sudan was ignored until just recently and many thousands of children worldwide die from starvation every day. In addition, globalization has gone far beyond the scope of what could have been imagined in 1945. “Globalization has also created new vulnerabilities to old threats. Criminal networks take advantage of the most advanced technologies to traffic around the world in drugs, arms, precious metals and stones even people” (“We the peoples” 2000). Following the mass murder, torture and displacement of many thousands in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo in the 1990’s and continuing throughout the current crises in Darfur, Sudan, world leaders have debated the issue of ‘humanitarian intervention.’ Members of the United Nations, governments, charity organizations, intellectuals, church officials and the public alike have been compelled to consider the many moral and legal aspects of humanitarian and military intervention into a sovereign state. The debate centers around what means and under what circumstances can countries force their will on another nation. In many instances of ‘ethnic cleansing,’ government officials themselves have committed these atrocities on its citizens but U.N. regulations prohibit external interventions into the internal dealings of a nation. Therefore, the power of the international community has proved impotent while thousands suffer. In September of 2005, the world leaders assembled at the U.N. The largest such gathering of heads of state in history produced the ‘responsibility to protect’ document in which 150 signatures were attached. The nations of the world agreed “to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the UN Charter … on a case by case basis and in cooperation with relevant organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate” (Rasul, 2005). Since the end of World War II and the Nazi’s implementation of the ‘final solution,’ the phrase, ‘never again’ has echoed throughout the world, but genocide has occurred over and over again. The responsibility to protect is an agreement late in coming. It has not curbed the violence in Darfur and its complex implications have not existed without continued debate and controversy. The ‘Responsibility to Protect,’ a basic tenant by which the UN operates, provides that a country cannot refuse assistance or support from other countries when it cannot or will not safeguard its citizens from genocide or other actions deemed as a crime against humanity. All nations’ sovereignty is respected as is their ability to conduct their own affairs but this is a qualified condition, not one that is considered absolute. “When peaceful means are exhausted and leaders of a UN member state are ‘manifestly failing to protect their populations,’ then other states have the responsibility to take collective action through the Security Council” (O’Neill, 2006). In some respects, the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” was founded in the common concern for human rights worldwide, the concept that initiated the formation of the U.N. The Genocide Treaty (1948) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) are manifestations of the U.N.’s founding principles. In the 1960’s, the international human rights covenants furthered this philosophical stance of the U.N. However, these treaties, covenants and resolutions were not effectively enforced. Affected countries argued that their right to national sovereignty superseded the intentions of uninvited intrusion. For many years, the U.N. and others have debated the subject of humanitarian intervention issue regarding the question of when the nations of the world should unite to take military action against a country so as to protect that country’s population. Supporters of ‘the responsibility to protect’ and ‘humanitarian intervention’ concepts include liberal-minded persons worldwide who encourage the use of military forces to come to the aid of desperate people (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001). However, the questions surrounding the use of force has been of great concern to many especially following the recent ‘humanitarian’ efforts in Iraq led predominantly by the United States. When the conservative leadership in the U.S. sent military forces to occupy Iraq, the liberal concept of humanitarianism was occupied as well. Political author Ian Williams perhaps recognized this ideological occupation when he commented, “we should not let George W. Bush’s misappropriation of humanitarian intervention alienate the concept from its natural owners, the left” (Williams, 2003). As evidence of its claim, the U.S. videotaped soldiers handing out food to citizens of a city that it just bombed. The liberal proponents of forced humanitarian assistance are rightfully disgusted that the Iraq war was dubbed a humanitarian effort. Since invasion of Iraq, the liberal-minded have earnestly sought to create a doctrine of intervention which distinguishes its notion of legitimate humanitarianism via military force from the illegitimate variety. Mindful of this scenario prior to the 2003 Iraq invasion, a report issued by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty suggested the terminology ‘right to intervene’ be changed to ‘responsibility to protect’ in addition to altering the framework of the concept by crafting guidelines that distinguishes legitimate from illegitimate humanitarian militarism. The Commission maintains that “efforts to fortify the ramparts of humanitarianism against the grasp of imperial interventionists may prove futile” (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, 2001). No doubt the majority of Iraq citizens do not regard the occupation of military forces and deaths of many thousands of innocent civilians as a humanitarian cause. Such actions which attempt to hide under the veil of a humanitarian mission when it clearly is not having raised much debate even amongst the liberal-minded regarding the specific situations when the use of military forces is appropriate. Critics of the responsibility to protect concept argue that it is simply another method by which the western world can justify its imperialistic predispositions. The concern being that responsibility to protect will be invoked whenever a more powerful nation wishes to advance its own agenda at the expense of the less powerful. Of course, this concern cannot be dismissed or denied in light of the Iraqi occupation which makes the argument for military intervention a tough sell to all, especially to the lesser developed countries. It is the nature of countries to consider their own interests first and foremost and a responsibility to protect document, no matter how well intentioned, cannot change this fact or guarantee that the motives behind its invocation are morally sound in every situation. The responsibility to protect is also criticized because it does not place enough emphasis on poverty and famine conditions and too much on violent situations. In addition, many that advocate humanitarian efforts question military involvement as the focus of this effort. “The challenge facing enlightened state leaders is to build an international consensus behind policies that address the underlying cause of human rights deprivations and that defend basic rights wherever and whenever they are threatened” (Linklater, 2000). For a country to intervene in a humanitarian pursuit, it must convince the Security Council of its motives for it to be a legal action. The U.S. ‘humanitarian’ exercise in Iraq and Afghanistan is illegal in the eyes of the U.N., the International Court of Justice and in the court of public opinion therefore should not be considered an accurate characterization of military intervention as supported by the left-minded or the U.N. However, the perception remains that the Iraq war is a conspicuous example for potential abuses within the responsibility to protect doctrine. “It will be more difficult next time for us to call on military action when we need it to save potentially hundreds of thousands of lives” (Roth, 2004). This comment has particular meaning when considering the lack of global reaction there has been to the circumstances in Darfur where more than 300,000 people have been murdered (International Development Committee, 2005) and at least 1.75 million persons supplanted since 2003 (Secretary-General, 2005). The Darfur government provides the definitive example of a state’s leadership that is either unwilling or unable to safeguard its citizens. The community of nations has thus far been unwilling to take the necessary action envisioned by responsibility to protect because of the perceptions for the potential abuses of authority. Another common criticism is that for the responsibility to protect to be properly implemented, it first requires a sufficient military force be assembled beforehand (Macfarlane, 2004). It has been argued that military manpower would not be of concern if the U.S. was interested in protecting Darfur’s citizens. The deployment of troops to Darfur would not be without cost but if safeguarding civilians from genocide were high on the political priority list, the risks would be deemed justifiable. Presently the relatively small African Union military force is attempting to protect the citizens of Darfur from genocide. This is a goal that will not be realized without further military as well as political support (Reeves, 2005). Another criticism regarding the situation in Darfur is that the responsibility to protect relies solely on the Security Council’s approval for the authorization of humanitarian interventions. If it is given that military capabilities were not an obstacle, intervention would still face unlikely passage by the Security Council. Any resolution can be vetoed by one member of the Security Council. China is a member and imports most of its oil from Sudan. A military conflict in this region is decidedly not in China’s best interest. The responsibility to protect report suggested modifying the veto system for an occasion of this type but the acceptance of this change depends on the outcome of the discussions regarding U.N. reforms (Reeves, 2005). The world discusses while Darfur suffers. The responsibility to protect is not a new concept. The U.N. has addressed how nations are entitled to act when attacked (UN Charter, Article 51) and the authorization of force ‘to maintain or restore international peace and security’ (UN Charter Chapter Seven). These regulations contain several unresolved issues as well and do not adequately address forcible military intervention into a sovereign nation for humanitarian purposes so cannot be associated with the intervention debate, only the initial concept of humanitarianism (Evans, 2004). The debate among those in the academic community has produced much thoughtful, incisive writing on the subject, but it has not been greatly influential thus not any more helpful to the people of Darfur than debates in the political arena. The Swedish and Danish governments have produced well-respected studies concerning the responsibility to protect. “A common theme of these reports, and many other scholarly analyses, has been a distinction drawn between ‘legal’ and ‘legitimate’ interventions” (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). The debates regarding military intervention to protect people from genocide, torture, starvation and displacement continue while governments continue to consider their own interests with little regard to others. Human nature continues to be fallible and the nations of the world experience internal conflicts. The world continues the debate as countless people continue to suffer needlessly. Some are fearful that strengthening the jurisdictional powers of the UN could lead to a world governing body in much the same way the EU has broadened its power over Europe. Those that do not share this concern point to the war in Iraq and the situation in Darfur as classic examples of why the UN must endure and its resolutions followed by all member countries or face severe penalties. Progress has been made in the effort to combat world hunger and disease, internal and external conflicts and environmental issues (Gordenker, 2005: 79-80). The open hostility between Israel and Arab nations exists even today in the offices of the United Nations wherein all of these conflicts and differences are supposed to be aired out and resolved. The UN actually has proven a stumbling block to finding a solution to the problem of Israel. Without a clear voice in the decision-making arena, the tiny Jewish State has little option but to accede to the dictates of the Arab-dominated UN deliberations or to resort to violence or open disobedience. In addition, the animosity present does little to ensure that all countries involved, especially Israel itself, can be sure that Israel is getting a fair and impartial judgment on their actions, counteractions and positions. Israel has existed as a nation for the past 58 years, established by the Jewish Provisional State Council after World War II and 11 years after Great Britain proposed the idea of a split nation in front of the UN (Kjeilen, 2006). At that time, the Jewish population in Palestine was estimated to be around 590,000 as compared to approximately 1,320,000 Palestinians, making the Jews equal approximately 31 percent of the total population (Kjeilen, 2006). The Arab nations voiced immediate opposition to the UN’s 1947 plan, joined soon after Israel’s foundation by Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, in a struggle that continues to this day. Although a few countries have consistently supported Israels actions in the UN, such as the U.S. and Australia, Israel has particularly few supporters in the United Nations. This is due, in part, to the large Muslim contingent (57 countries) and their influence: in terms of sheer voting strength in the General Assembly, this block represents about one-fourth of the delegates, though no Muslim country holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. Moreover, Israel is the only member nation that that has never been enfranchised with voting rights in any part of the United Nations. The United States has frequently found it necessary to use its veto to protect Israel from condemnatory Security Council votes. In fact, this is a significant factor in the large number of vetoes the United States has enforced in general (Mingst, 2006: 88). Since September 2000 alone, almost 1,000 Israelis, most of them civilians and including more than 100 children, have been killed by Palestinians since the start of the Intifada uprising (“Human Rights Concerns” 2006). “As a result of Israel’s offering to allow the PLO control over the West Bank and Gaza, and Israel’s willingness to acquiesce in Palestinian statehood in the medium run, the PLO and its affiliates have murdered 1300 Israelis, most of them civilians and many of them children, since foreswearing the use of violence” (Plaut 2004). Palestinians have used mothers of small children as suicide bombing murderers. Palestinians teenagers have been detained on their way to carry out a bombing and mass murder. PLO operates a large military-industrial complex, many from out of underground tunnels. “These have produced large numbers of ground-to-ground rockets. In 2003 alone the Palestinians fired 210 Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip into Jewish civilian areas” (Plaut 2004). According to recent polls, most Europeans believe that Israel is alone responsible for the current conflict even though a majority believed that Yasser Arafat genuinely sought peace. “By two to one, Europeans take the Palestinians’ side. While overwhelmingly condemning suicide attacks, most Europeans still see Palestinian terrorism as a consequence of Ariel Sharon’s aggressive policies. … 15 percent go so far as to justify terrorism and make Israel’s right to exist conditional on the establishment of a Palestinian state. Fewer and fewer Europeans see Israel’s existence as sacred” (Ottolenghi 2004). Anti-Jewish violence in France often centers around the most obviously observant Jews. “Jews are attacked because of their alleged unconditional support for the policies of the state of Israel in the Palestinian territories” (Camus 2003). When the UN created Israel, it created a never-ending bloody confrontation between the Middle Eastern and Western nation which constantly threatens to erupt in a WWIII scenario. For the UN to achieve its desired goals and to successfully address the problems facing the world now and in the future, the member nations must commit to its success which includes adhering to its resolutions. If they do not, especially the US which is the most powerful military and economy of the world and permanent member of the Security Council, this world governing experiment will cease to be of any real consequence. If, however, if the UN’s authority is further empowered it can accomplish much in terms of world peace and humanitarian concerns. The future of the UN depends on the commitment of the worlds nations to improve the world and its people. Works Cited Camus, Jean-Yves. “Viewpoints: Anti-Semitism and Europe.” BBC News. December 3, 2003. International Edition. November 6, 2007 Evans, Gareth & Sahnoun, Mohamed. (November/December 2002). “The Responsibility to Protect.” Foreign Affairs. November 6, 2007 Evans, Gareth. “The Responsibility to Protect: Rethinking Humanitarian Intervention.” International Crisis Group Address to The American Society of International Law, 98th Annual Meeting,  Panel on “Rethinking Collective Action”, Washington DC: April 1, 2004. Gordenker, Leon. The UN Secretary-General and Secretariat (Global Institutions). United Kingdom: Routledge, September 1, 2005. “Human Rights Concerns.” Israel / Occupied Territory. 2006. Amnesty International USA. November 6, 2007 International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. The Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. (2001). November 6, 2007 International Development Committee. Darfur, Sudan: The Responsibility to Protect, 2004–05. H.C. 67-1, (March 2005). Kjeilen, Tori. “Israel: History.” Encyclopedia of the Orient. (2006). November 6, 2007 < http://lexicorient.com/e.o/israel_5.htm> Linklater, Andrew. “The Good International Citizen and the Crisis in Kosovo.” Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian Intervention: Selective Imagination, Collective Action, and International Citizenship. Ramesh Thakur & Albrecht Schnabel (Eds.). Tokyo: UN University Press, (2000). Macfarlane S. Neil et al. The Responsibility to Protect: Is Anyone Interested in Humanitarian Intervention? 25 Third World Q. (2004): 977, 980. Mingst, Karen A. The United Nations in the Twenty-First Century (Dilemmas in World Politics). Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, (August 30, 2006). O’Neill, William G. “The Responsibility to Protect Darfur.” The Christian Science Monitor. September 28, 2006. November 6, 2007 from Ottolenghi, Emanuele. “Europe Wants Israel to Lose.” Jerusalem Post. July 28, 2004. Oxford University. November 6, 2007 Plaut, Steven. “Israel’s Real Choice is Either to Fight and Survive, or to Capitulate and be Destroyed.” Betar UK, (March 7, 2004). November 6, 2007 Rasul, Fatema Abdul. “Responsibility to Protect.” Global Solutions Fact Sheet. (September 22, 2005). Citizens for Global Solutions. November 6, 2007 Reeves, Eric. Darfur: Shame and Responsibility. Dissent, Fall 2005. Roth, Kenneth. The War in Iraq: Justified as Humanitarian Intervention? Kroc Institute, Occasional Paper #25, (2004): OP:1. Secretary-General. Monthly Report of the Secretary-General on Darfur. Delivered to the Security Council, U.N. Doc. S/2005/719. (November 16, 2005). November 6, 2007 Williams, Ian. “Intervene with Caution.” These Times. (August 11, 2003). November 6, 2007 “The United Nations – Preserving Peace.” Guide to Government. Direct.gov. (2007). November 6, 2007 UN News Service [headlines]. September 14, 2007. November 6, 2007 United Nations. “Basic Facts about the United Nations.” New York: United Nations, October 30, 2004. “We the Peoples: The Role of the United Nations in the Twenty-First Century.” (Report of the Secretary-General United Nations General Assembly.) (March 27, 2000). November 6, 2007 Read More