United Nations plays a crucial role in the international system. It is an organization that develops and enforces international laws and policies while solving threats and conflicts. As written in UN’s first and second Charter, UN was created “To maintain international peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or enforcement action.” Today we are going to assess the effectiveness of the UN in peacekeeping, negotiating conflict and post conflict development.
While UN has its own limitations, it has a very good record for enduring peace in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, Eastern Slovenia, Sierra Leone and East Timor. The purposes of the UN are, “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,” “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,” and “To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”—UN Charter, CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES, Article 1. In another word, UN was designed to bring nations together to work for peace, development, human dignity, and the well-being of all people, based on the principles of justice.
According to the RAND corporation, “Of the eight UN-led cases, seven are at peace.” Comparing UN to US, another dominant “peacebuilding” nation, “of the eight U.S.-led cases, four are at peace; four are not—or not yet—at peace.” We could tell that UN is, indeed, effective in peacekeeping, but only in UN led peacekeeping cases. The fact that the P5 members could easily prevent the UN from carrying out peacekeeping actions means peacekeeping could easily be intervened when the peacekeeping isn’t in any one of the P5’s interest. When any of the P5 countries in Security Council veto SC resolution, the resolution would be completely ineffective. As every P5 members represent a different stance in the world political system, many times the resolution would be either vetoed, or too weak to fuse an effect in peacekeeping. UNSC had also been accused of being a tool for the P5’s strategic interests and political motives. An example would be protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991, while ignoring the resource-poor Rwandans in 1997.
Another critic of the UN argues that UN was proven completely ineffective in preventing the country from killing its own citizen, especially genocide. It was due to UN’s charter to not intervene the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Such an example would be the War in Darfur, where in February 2003, rebelling groups upraised against its government. The government responded by carrying out genocide against Darfur’s non-Arab. Another example proving the futile UN force would be the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. In April 1993, the UN declared Srebrenica, a region in north-eastern Bosnia, a “safe area.” However, even with UN Protective Force protecting the area, the UN could do nothing about the massacre, resulting in more than 8000 death.
Although UN is one of the most powerful organizations in the world, and it had proven effective in peacekeeping actions when it is approved to do so, the fact it would be completely useless without the P5 support is obvious. UN charter’s own limitations on not interfering with other states’ domestic jurisdiction also prove it to be ineffective in dealing with intrastate genocide.
While UN has its own limitations, it has a very good record for enduring peace in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique, Eastern Slovenia, Sierra Leone and East Timor. The purposes of the UN are, “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace,” “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,” and “To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.”—UN Charter, CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES, Article 1. In another word, UN was designed to bring nations together to work for peace, development, human dignity, and the well-being of all people, based on the principles of justice.
According to the RAND corporation, “Of the eight UN-led cases, seven are at peace.” Comparing UN to US, another dominant “peacebuilding” nation, “of the eight U.S.-led cases, four are at peace; four are not—or not yet—at peace.” We could tell that UN is, indeed, effective in peacekeeping, but only in UN led peacekeeping cases. The fact that the P5 members could easily prevent the UN from carrying out peacekeeping actions means peacekeeping could easily be intervened when the peacekeeping isn’t in any one of the P5’s interest. When any of the P5 countries in Security Council veto SC resolution, the resolution would be completely ineffective. As every P5 members represent a different stance in the world political system, many times the resolution would be either vetoed, or too weak to fuse an effect in peacekeeping. UNSC had also been accused of being a tool for the P5’s strategic interests and political motives. An example would be protecting the oil-rich Kuwaitis in 1991, while ignoring the resource-poor Rwandans in 1997.
Another critic of the UN argues that UN was proven completely ineffective in preventing the country from killing its own citizen, especially genocide. It was due to UN’s charter to not intervene the domestic jurisdiction of any state. Such an example would be the War in Darfur, where in February 2003, rebelling groups upraised against its government. The government responded by carrying out genocide against Darfur’s non-Arab. Another example proving the futile UN force would be the Srebrenica massacre in 1995. In April 1993, the UN declared Srebrenica, a region in north-eastern Bosnia, a “safe area.” However, even with UN Protective Force protecting the area, the UN could do nothing about the massacre, resulting in more than 8000 death.
Although UN is one of the most powerful organizations in the world, and it had proven effective in peacekeeping actions when it is approved to do so, the fact it would be completely useless without the P5 support is obvious. UN charter’s own limitations on not interfering with other states’ domestic jurisdiction also prove it to be ineffective in dealing with intrastate genocide.