Is the United Nations an effective organization?

Résumé du document

The United Nations is not the first international organization to be established to help in settling conflicts peacefully and preventing future conflicts. In 1899, the Hague Convention for the Settlement of International Disputes was established. "The conference was convened at the initiative of Czar Nicolas II of Russia "with the object of seeking the most objective means of ensuring to all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace, and above all, of limiting the progressive development of existing armaments.""1. "The Hague Convention set up the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which was the first global mechanism for the settlement of inter-state disputes"1. There was also the League of Nations established in 1919 by Woodrow Wilson. However, these organizations proved to be ineffective due to a lack of credibility and legitimacy. Therefore, I shall look at the United Nations' effectiveness as a system by looking at what is has done so far, and by examining just how legitimate and credible it really is.

"The United Nations was established in the aftermath of World War II to help in stabilizing international relations and give peace a secure foundation."2. In 1945, when the United Nations was first set-up, it had 51 member states, now, 58 years on, it has nearly quadrupled in terms of member states with presently 191 countries. The United Nations has been engaged in a total of 53 peace keeping missions since its formation although obviously not all of them have been successful

Extraits

[...] In conclusion, the United Nations' effectiveness is dependent on how one defines effective. When looking from an empirical view, the United Nations has negotiated 172 peaceful settlements, although not all were brilliantly successful, for example Rwanda, Sudan and Sierra Leone. On the other hand the United Nations cannot be seen to take sides and stop conflict, such as genocide, as this would detract from their impartiality. Therefore how effective is this international organisation if it can only function if there is peace, you can only keep peace once there is peace, but if there is still fighting there is nothing much the United Nations can do. [...]

[...] This must be symbolic of something, why would nations of the world want to join an ineffective organisation? There is something about the United Nations that is attractive to sovereign states which is why they are so keen to become part of this international organisation, it is more than likely the way in which the United Nations deals with global issues. These include “child survival and development, environmental protection, human rights, health and medical research, alleviation of poverty and economic development, agricultural development and fisheries, education, family planning, emergency and disaster relief, air and sea travel, peaceful uses of atomic energy, labour and workers' rights . [...]

[...] The United Nations is a label that people associate with a sense of reassurance. For example, on the AOL website a poll has been carried out concerning the crisis with Iraq. The figures show that 64% of people would support an United Nationsapproved attack on Iraq whereas only 31% would support a United States/United Kingdom attack on Iraq without United Nations approval. This clearly demonstrates that the United Nations provides some false sense of security and legitimacy for people as, in truth, the United Nations is run by the United States, and this is all due to the funding aspect. [...]

[...] Therefore the United Nations will either remain the way it is or change will come about extremely slowly. The Hague Convention and the League of Nations broke down because of continual failures to do anything about international conflicts which eventually undermined confidence in it's efficacy and members started ignoring the Council, as can be seen in the United Nations with regard to the United States and Yugoslavia. These organisations did not have military forces, like the United Nations because they are meant to be seen as a peaceful organisation and one, which is impartial. [...]

[...] Or, will the United Nations not take such a risk and be pressured into backing a war, to save face from America and the United Kingdom going to war with Iraq and the possibility of the United Nations as an international organisation becoming irrelevant and defunct? However, the United Nations didn't exist we would have to invent it”6. Although it is flawed, it is better than nothing. Reform of the Security Council to make it in some way more democratic, for example have six seats, one for each continent, and make none of them permanent so all the members are rotated for terms of a fixed period on the Security Council. [...]