The United Nations serves as an important international governmental organization for the entire world; however, its weaknesses are almost as numerous as its strengths. The U.N. was established in 1945 by multinational accord with the purpose of avoiding war and conflict by ensuring the promotion of human rights and social justice in all countries and societies (United Nations n.p.). The member countries agree that they will exercise their authority for the purpose of peace and the advancement of justice; however, it is clear that they do not always uphold this commitment. When this occurs, the U.N. is relatively limited in its power to sanction the country and pressure it to conform to standards of peace rather than aggression. It can refuse to support a country’s actions, as it has in the case of the U.S. war against Iraq (Jones para. 3), but beyond these types of strategies of influence, the active power of the U.N. is minimal.
The U.N. is widely respected and has an international force of peace-keepers who are dispatched to conflict regions for the purpose of establishing order and protecting vulnerable populations, which they have done successfully in many regions. The U.N.’s “capacity to respond to conflicts,” however, is often constricted by a complex set of variables related to its own organizational structure as well as by regional realities. In the case of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, for example, the U.N. admitted that it was culpable for preventing the genocide from escalating. An internal report indicated that the “mission had not been planned, deployed or instructed in a way that would have enabled it to stop the genocide” (Africa Recovery, United Nations para. 4). Furthermore, the U.N.’s Rwanda mission was “also the victim of a lack of political will in the Security Council and by other member states” (Africa Recovery, United Nations para. 4). This fact underscores the idea that the same source of the U.N.’s strength—its collective, international approach—is also its greatest weakness.
The United Nations and the United States share a unique relationship. One of the reasons for the particular closeness between the U.N. and the U.S. is that the charter which resulted in the U.N.’s official establishment and its declaration of principles occurred in San Francisco in 1945 (United Nations n.p.). The U.N. is an international body, but its headquarters is located in the U.S. As one of the five founding member countries of the U.N., the U.S. retains a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council, giving it a degree of influence that other member nations do not enjoy. For some nations, the degree of influence that the U.S. exerts over the U.N. is considered problematic; however, more recently, critics of the U.N. have actually accused the international organization of being “anti-United States” because of the position that it has taken against the war in Iraq (Albright para. 1). However, as former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan asserted, “such talk ill … is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about what the United Nations is, and what it does “(para. 5). Annan went on to remind people that “The United Nations is an association of sovereign States, one of which is the United States,” (para. 6), though he acknowledged that “for a number of reasons, the United States holds a unique position” (para. 6). These reasons include the U.S.’s economic and military power, and its history and culture as a superpower, which distinguish it from other countries and make it “bound to play a leading role in any Organization that it belongs to” (para. 8). For these reasons, Annan contends that the United States and United Nations have always needed, and will continue to need, one another for the facilitation of goals that are mutually beneficial and for which the U.S. is uniquely suited to contribute with respect to their achievement.
In order to achieve its numerous objectives related to social justice, the U.N. has, over the years, established programs and autonomous agencies for the purpose of devoting the energies and resources that are necessary to alleviate and potentially eradicate certain social problems that afflict the entire world. Three of these agencies are the UN High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). UNHCR was established in 1950 with the mandate to “lead and co-ordinate international action to protect refugees and resolve refugee problems worldwide” (para. 1).UNHCR has offices in 116 countries, and has helped over 50 million displaced people get re-established over the course of its history (para. 1). Despite its efforts, however, there are still thousands of refugees who are temporarily and permanently displaced without assistance. The war on Iraq has displaced more than 2 million people into exile and 1.7 million internal displacements (U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants para. 1); in fact internal displacement is one of the most significant refugee problems in the world today. UNICEF was established in 1946 for the purpose of providing basic necessities to the world’s impoverished children (UNICEF para. 1). UNICEF is one of the U.N.’s most successful and most recognized programs, and despite persistent poverty around the world, the agency has been responsible for various achievements, including bringing attention to pediatric AIDS, improving educational opportunities for girls, and working with other NGOs to enhance regional infrastructures for quality of life issues (water, shelter, and the like) (UNICEF para. 1). UNESCO was founded in 1945 as an instrument of achieving the goals of the UN and related programs, such as UNHCR and UNICEF, by building “peace in the minds of men” (UNESCO para. 1). To that end, the work of UNESCO involves supporting cultural development through conversational fora, cultural activities, and the like. For this reason, its achievements are harder to asses.
I agree with former U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who wrote that despite the United Nations’ obvious problems and limitations, the world is a better place because of this organization, and it would be worse without it (para 1). The United Nations is like the world itself: fallible, imperfect, and striving to be better. Because it is a project that is ambitious in spirit and scope, it is inevitable that philosophical and operational challenges will arise. The same is true for every nation that calls itself a member of the U.N., and the fact is not a cause to shut down a country. The idea of the United Nations is important, and the struggle to continue improving its capacity for fulfilling its mission and objectives is worthwhile. The League of Nations, which is often considered as the predecessor of the United Nations (United Nations, para. 1), folded because it failed in its goal to prevent World War I. Yet giving up will certainly not solve the problems that plague humanity most, and every human being deserves a chance both to contribute to and benefit from the important processes, policies, and programs that the U.N. has spearheaded. Could the United Nations be more effective? Of course, it could; so too, could member countries. In my opinion, the United Nations should not introduce any changes with respect to its organizational structure or practices. While they may result in occasional challenges and shortcomings, even grave oversights and mistakes, the U.N.’s policies and practices still offer the best possibility for social change.
“Commitments,” write Raustiala and Slaughter, “are a persistent feature of international affairs” and relationships (538). The “[d]isagreement over the effect of international commitments and the causes of compliance with them is equally persistent” (Raustiala and Slaughter 538). International law is often criticized as ineffective because of the difficulty associated with its enforcement. Nevertheless, nations often decide to comply with international law because it is in their best interests to do so. When a country flagrantly violates international law, it does so at the risk of suffering severe political, cultural, social, and economic sanctions that can damage its internal functioning, as well as inhibit friendly and useful relationships with other members of the international community. A country that violates international law also risks being branded as a hypocrite, as international law typically emerges as the result of multinational conventions, often after a war or conflict which has forced a reconceptualization of a particular problem faced by multiple countries or the entire international community. Such laws include the Geneva Conventions, which established legal standards on a wide variety practices with respect to the fair treatment of all human beings (Learn Peace para. 5) As the world becomes increasingly globalized, the importance of countries complying with international law will likely become even more important than it is at present. Globalization results in the interdependence of countries for trade and economic growth, and wielding the threat of economic sanctions, tariffs, or trade embargos can threaten a developing country’s economy (Raustiala & Slaughter 538).
International law has long been neglected in international relations; however, it is imperative that states and non-states actors re-examine their approach to and respect for international law, especially as boundaries begin to dissolve as a result of globalization. As nations come into increase contact with one another, they become exponentially more dependent upon one another. At the same time though, this increased contact result in conflicts, small and large, over ideological and cultural differences that inform the policies and practices characteristic of a country, as well as the laws that govern those policies and practices. While no country has ever really acted completely outside the sphere of influence of other nations, now more than ever it is imperative for countries to respect international law as a means of facilitating world relations. A recent example of the violation of international law provides an opportunity for thoughtful reflection and analysis on the implications of this subject. The United States’ war against terrorism precipitated a number of questionable practices, both at home and abroad. Two of the most controversial episodes include the prison abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib and the detention of alleged insurgents at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both the Abu Ghraib and the detainee scandals (which also involved prisoner abuse) have been sharply criticized by the international community as a flagrant violation of international conventions and laws (Croessman 945). This posture has attracted criticism by countries that are traditional U.S. allies, as well as by radical insurgent groups who rightly point out the hypocrisy of the discrepancy between articulated values and espoused practices. It is unlikely that the United States has seen the long-term fall-out of this choice to violate international law.
In the words of Kofi Annan, the former Secretary General of the United Nations “as the world changes, the United Nations must continue the process of renewal and adaptation.” Like any country, the United Nations must constantly reassess and evaluate its policies and practices to ensure that they are consistent with contemporary realities. The world is not a static place, and the U.N., as an international organization committed to safeguarding the world’s citizens, must demonstrate dynamism, flexibility, and the ability to adapt and evolve as world circumstances demand. One of the ways that the United Nations can renew and adapt is by continuing its work to engage those countries which are not yet members of the United Nations and who, as a result, remain marginalized within the international community. Also, the U.N. can continue its work in assisting postcolonial nations with developing the infrastructure and identity that are required to function as autonomous nation states. These new nations should be brought fully into the work of the U.N., with their voices and actions shaping the direction of the U.N. in this millennium. The U.N. should also constantly evaluate the realistic extent of its influence and power. There are some problems which the U.N. may not be able to address effectively, and in such cases, the organization should direct its attention to those areas of need in which it is most capable. It should also attend to striking a thoughtful and practical balance between its idealism and its actual abilities. The Millennium Goals were one tangible way to operationalize the mission of the United Nations and to set benchmarks that can be used to measure progress.
At the Millennium Summit in 2000, member states clearly recognized that all the principal organs of the United Nations were in need of reform. They contended that no reform of the United Nations will be complete without the reform of the Security Council, which they deemed unrepresentative of the contemporary geopolitical realities and relationships. The member states further argued that the operations of the Security Council should be more transparent and less insular. The member states that promoted this argument have merit. The Security Council is comprised of five permanent members, who have driven many of the major decisions made by the United Nations since its founding. These members include China, Russia, the UK, the US, and France (UN Security Council para. 1). There are ten non-permanent member states that serve two year terms. The permanent members, then, exert a significant amount of power and influence, whereas the non-permanent members, though greater in number, hardly have enough time to get established on the Council before they are rotated off. Also, even though each member on the Security Council has one vote, equally weighted, “[d]ecisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of ‘great Power unanimity’” (UN Security Council para. 3). Perhaps, though, the days of “great power” are over, and the mission and values of the UN would be better reflected by a more egalitarian organizational structure on the Security Council.
Works Cited
Africa Recovery, United Nations. “Inquiry Finds U.N. Failure to Halt 1994 Genocide.”
1999. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/134peac2.htm
Albright, Madeline K. “Think Again: The United Nations.” Foreign Policy. 2003. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=34
Annan, Kofi. “United States, United Nations Need Each Other in Relationship of ‘Productive Interdependence.’” 2003. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 fromhttp://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sgsm8955Rev1.doc.htm
Croessman, Alan. “Congress’ Preliminary Response to the Abu Ghraib Prison Abuses. Brooklyn Law Review 71.2 (2004): 945-983.
Jones, Seth G. “The U.N.’s Strengths and Weaknesses in Iraq.” RAND Commentary. February 18, 2004. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 fromhttp://www.rand.org/commentary/021804SDT.html
Learn Peace. “Geneva Convention.” Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html
Raustiala, Kal, and Anne-Marie Slaughter. “International Law, International Relations, and Compliance.” In Handbook of International Relations. 538-558. Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse, and Beth A Simmons. (eds). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002.
UN Security Council. “Membership of the Security Council.” Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.un.org/sc/members.asp
UNESCO. “About UNESCO.” Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=3328&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
UNICEF. “About UNICEF.” Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.unicef.org/about/who/index_history.html
United Nations. “History of the United Nations.” 2005. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/
United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees. “Basic Facts.” Retrieved on April 30, 2007 from http://www.unhcr.org/basics.html
U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants. Appeal to Congress: $250 million for Iraqi Refugee Assistance and Resettlement. Retrieved on April 30, 2007 fromhttp://www.refugees.org/article.aspx?id=1132
