It seems a very broad topic for such a short essay. I'd suggest focusing on a single example and trying to identify the factors that prevented the UN from acting effectively. Even that would be a lot to accommodate, but it would be easier to develop a coherent argument with a tighter focus.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
On balance it is better to have the UN than not. It's efforts at peacekeeping have not all been bad, although from the essay you'd guess it was bad, bad.
How about including references to the successes: Namibia, Mozambique, Cambodia, Cyprus and on Israel's borders?
The UN is generally only successful in conflicts when there is a local and international agreement. The UN's mistake IMO was to try peace enforcement when only international agreement was in place, the DRC is a great example.
You will have noted the changing composition of UN military forces too, many of the "regulars" are no longer there: Canada, Scandinavia, and even India appears to be asking itself why. The USA rarely has been a participant.
davidbfpo
In addition to the points raised by Dayuhan about the scope of the essay and by davidbfpo in general I wanted to throw in some personal views:
1) I'm in general quite sceptic about the use of a too sharp schema of "new" and "old" wars. In fact I do believe that those conflicts described as "new" types have even older roots and have ever been part of the history of humankind. Only in some parts of the world they have been overshadowed in relative recent times by the those described here as "old" wars.
2) The UN has for obvious political and to a lesser degree legal reasons an easier time to efficiently act when there is a relative strong consensus about the problem and the mandatem, when there are distinct persons and institutions with which an effective interaction is possible. This hardly goes only for the UN or other international organisations but is in general even true in the private sector.
3) In short having the UN is, as written before, on balance then not having it. It even can be far better under some circumstances, especially when it has a narrow mission. As the US and it's Western allies have experienced even a vast amount of ressources and direct control over efficient national means can result in little progress when the local institutions are largely ineffective and the situations chaotic.
P.S: I do not understand the distinction between "Liberals" and "Realists". Thanks.
... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"
General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935
Okay, after further discussing this with the tutor, the decision has been made to focus on one particular point. This gives me the space I need to give a proper argument and a counterpoint (Ie, UN successes)
Firn, I'm not a fan of the New vs Old war distinction either. "New" Wars have been happening since Alexander The Great, so I'm still of the opinion that it's a bit of a misnomer, but I still maintain that the UN is only suited for a particular kind of conflict. I wouldn't say we'd be better off without it, but it's not the one-fix-shop people think it is and I think it's telling that the UN has made huge expenses for little gain in most conflicts.
The Liberal vs Realist thing is the opposing International Relations theories of Liberalism and Realism. Obviously they're not the only schools of though, and they each have general subsets, but the academics (At least, here in our department) tend to focus a lot of those two opposing schools of thought.
Like the New vs Old War theory, I think it's ridiculous to break down international politics to a number of distinctly different "Theories" in an effort to explain or simplify things. When tutors or students try and get me to take a side with a particular theory I usually respond with "Yes", because I genuinely don't believe any one theory covers it all.
- Mac
I think the failure of the UN is rooted in something more fundamental than than nations failing to achieve consensus on military aims and resources.
The UN was founded, and continues to operate, on the basis of the noble fantasy that there exists a "community of nations."
Such has never existed and likely won't for the foreseeable future.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
This is a key part in the essay, but I've just realised that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, let alone in laymans terms.Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger
That shall be fixed.
Cheers,
Mac
Realism: International Relations
Common assumptions
Realism is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions.
1. Anarchy:
- There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity.
- The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism.
2. Egoism:
- Individuals and groups tend to pursue self-interest.
- Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible.
3. Groupism:
Politics takes place within and between groups.
4. Power politics:
- Relations between groups are determined by their levels of power derived primarily from their material (military and economic) capabilities.
- The overriding national interest of each state is its survival, and there is a general distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
- International politics are always power politics
The essential problem is sovereignty. Democratic nations don't want to give up sovereignty to an unelected and unaccountable foreign institution. For non-democratic nations the loss of sovereignty would threaten their hold on power. The UN thus becomes a political tool to wield in the service of the national interest.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
True, but they have no problem attempting to impose their concept of "popular sovereignty" on other states under the guise of Universal Human Rights.
I am not sure that is accurate. What some would view as non-democratic leaders get elected all the time. But I do believe that is how "non-democratic" states see it. The main threat coming from the "popular sovereignty" contingent who would limit any regime's ability to impose its will on its population in ways democratic leaders might not be openly willing to agree with.For non-democratic nations the loss of sovereignty would threaten their hold on power.
Unfortunate reality.The UN thus becomes a political tool to wield in the service of the national interest.
I still have to agree with others here that we are better off with it than without it. That does not mean that it could not stand a little tweaking.
Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 08-21-2012 at 01:31 PM.
"I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."
Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
---
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks