As in many Middle Eastern and Northern African nations, there is a current situation of political unrest currently in the nation of Syria.
When fighting began between Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, the United Nations got involved. The United Nations Security Council approved a "no-fly zone" over Libya. As with all decisions made by the UN Security Council, it was unanimous (there were no "naye" votes).
However, as political unrest spread further throughout the region, a different tone has been taken by some. In Syria, when unrest began, the United States, European Union, and others immediately condemned the actions of the reigning government. However, when sanctions and other actions were being discussed at the UN Security Council, no action was taken. Usually, Security Council meetings are closed-door. However, since the Security Council wanted to send a message, they held an open-door meeting, where there was not a clear message, as Russia, Lebanon, and China were skeptical after the U.S. air strike on Libya in March. Although it is clear that the Syrian government is oppressing its citizens to the point that some people want the U.N. to prosecute the government for “Crimes Against Humanity”, the UN cannot condemn actions or send in peacekeepers using the Security Council. They have asked for “urgent access to the southern city of Daraa in order to assess the humanitarian needs on the ground” , since the Syrian army is carrying out an operation in the city, firing at unarmed civilians, preventing medical personnel from helping the wounded, raiding mosques and arresting others. Even those these are clearly a violation of “understood” human rights and perhaps a violation of U.N. Human Rights code, no formal action is being taken. Even more shocking is that Syria is vying for a position on the U.N. Human Rights Council, for which elections are being held soon for. Although it is shocking that no action can be taken against Syria, it is part of what makes the UN a global platform, where all views are represented. Since there will always be differentiating views, it will always be a struggle to get a unanimous decision, even if something clearly needs to be done.
One major component to the United Nations is peacekeeping. The first UN peacekeeping took place in Israel, in 1948, and that is certainly not the only one. Currently, UN peacekeepers are engaged in 15 nations around the world (Current UN peacekeeping operations). In this current fiscal year, only $7.83 billion is being spent on the peacekeeping program, which is 0.5% of global military spending. That being said, the peacekeeping program has a hard time of always keeping the peace. As well, for peacekeepers to be present, there must be “consent of the parties” and “impartiality”. However, in many of the situations that peacekeepers are involved in, that does not happen, as in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, peacekeepers helped rescue Tutsis so that they could be protected from Hutus. Peacekeepers are not only involved in preventions of genocide, but in any situation where peace and security are at risk. Almost all of the time, when troops can be fielded, they do admirable work, to the point that they won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize. However, the troops are at the mercy of member nations, and if they choose not to help, these troops cannot work. 81% of peacekeeping monetary funding (some nations fund by other means) come from ten nations, all of which are wealthy nations. However, there is a perception that the peacekeepers do nothing and are powerless (see video) .
There have also been scandals that have plagued the UN peacekeeping mission, especially since with many of its problems, there is no enforcement (see video below). (The "enforcement" problem is universal within the UN, as some nations contribute nothing when they are obliged to do so)
However, almost everyone acknowledges that UN peacekeepers assist when needed and “keep the peace”, even if there are inequalities between nations, nations that refuse to contribute, and scandals that have dogged it. In order for the good such as in the video below to be accomplished more often, there needs to be more pressure on nations to contribute and for soldiers to work hard to keep the peace, instead of taking illegal actions.
As you can see, peacekeepers participate in quelling both political and humanitarian conflicts
After watching the 2004 episode of Frontline “Ghosts of Rwanda” (lots of information on it on the “Ghosts of Rwanda page of the blog), I felt much differently about the role of the United Nations than I had before. I had thought of the United Nations as a facilitator of peace and peaceful resolutions, as a body that has the power to prevent anything and make real change. However, after watching “Ghosts of Rwanda”, which describes the lead-up, the genocide itself, and the aftermath of the horrific 1994 Rwandan genocide, my view on the UN changed. In “Ghosts of Rwanda”, General Romeo Dallaire, a Canadian military officer who led peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda, as a man who strived to do everything he could to prevent the genocide before it started, and once it started, to lessen its effect. However, it showed the head of UN Peacekeeping, Kofi Annan, as dismissive regarding reliable intelligence regarding a planned genocide, which is against the UN rules, as the UN and its member nations are obliged to stop conspiracies of genocide. After Annan dismissed Dallaire’s report, genocide occurred in Rwanda, and almost no member nations let their peacekeeping troops stay in Rwanda (Ghana was the primary exception to this). Due to this, the UN could not keep peace with only 400 peacekeeping troops from the armies of developing nations, and no support from the United States in Europe. This shows that although every nation has made a promise to the United Nations, almost no nations actually kept it. What is the meaning of a law or agreement when nobody follows it? In order for the United Nations to have a real impact on preventing genocide before it starts, or if it starts, to stop it quickly, is for it to enforce all member nations to aid it in order to stop it. Here is a segment from “Ghosts of Rwanda” (it’s segment 2/12. The other segments are also available on YouTube, but this has the most information regarding the UN)
Starting in the nineteenth century, global organizations were started to monitor certain global relations, such as telegrams, parcels, and peace. These were all independent groups that were not allied together. After World War I, one of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points was to start a “League of Nations”. The League of Nations was started to "to promote international cooperation and to achieve peace and security" in the Treaty of Versailles. However, the League of Nations was a failure, as its biggest original backer, the United States, failed to join, and therefore, its power and influence was small. The League of Nations ceased after failing to prevent World War II. The League of Nations however influenced the upbringing of a new organization, the United Nations.
The League of Nations Logo
The term “United Nations” was first used by President Franklin Roosevelt on January 1, 1942, in the Declaration by United Nations, which was an agreement by 26 nations to continue fighting the Axis powers in World War II. After World War II, in 1945, representatives from 50 member nations met in San Francisco to write the United Nations Charter, which was based on principles created by the United States, Soviet Union, China, and England (the winners of WWII). On October 24, 1945, the UN officially became existent as the charter had been approved by the four nations cited above and a majority of the other 46 countries.
UN Charter signing-1945
At this time (and just as much so today), the United Nations had a lot of action to take. One of the first actions the United Nations took was to approve the Conventions on Genocide, which was especially prevalent at the time after the Holocaust, the massive genocide conducted by Nazi Germany to exterminate Jews and other “undesirable” ethnic/religious groups. The Conventions on Genocide (see below post with it for precise wording and a full definition of “genocide”) outlawed genocide, attempting genocide, and conspiring to commit genocide. As well, all member nations of the United Nations were obliged to intervene if they were knowingly aware of genocide happening in the world. This law is still in effect (at least technically). Since then, more nations have joined the United Nations (today, almost all nations are UN members). Since then, genocides have occurred throughout the world.
As an agency, the United Nations has no standing army, and relies on member nations to fund it both monetarily when money is needed and with troops when intervention is needed. When the UN sends in troops to intervene in a situation, the troops cannot fire/attack unless if they were first attacked. However, these troops are still often effective peacekeepers where they are serving. The United Nations is controlled by its member nations in two major parts, as well as numerous other organizations that monitor almost every aspect of human existence. The two most important parts of the U.N. are the General Assembly and the Security Council. Every member nation has an equal vote in the General Assembly, and its decisions are controlled by simple or 2/3 majority depending on the type of issue.
UN General Assembly
The Security Council has 5 permanent members (United States, England, France, Russia, and China) and 10 non-permanent members that alternate. The Security Council discusses threats to peace, and tries to mediate them at first. All decisions made by this group are unanimous, so if one member disagrees, no action will take place.
The Security Council has had many geopolitical divides since its founding, so its influence is limited. It could not intervene during the Cold War, since the United States and Soviet Union were both members. As a result, many nations will simply avoid it and use the power they believe they have. As per Michael J. Glennon, a foreign policy expert who occasionally writes for Foreign Affairs, the Security Council is broken, shown especially after the Bush administration did not work with it significantly before invading Iraq. One Bush administration member said “we don’t need the Security Council.” However, it assumed a crucial role in enforcing the Genocide conventions. Article VIII in the Convention on Genocide states "any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the UN to take such action under the Charter of the UN as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide…”. However, the Security Council has failed at enforcing policies in the Genocide convention.
The UN Security Council (a picture of their website homepage, but also the chamber)
Although all member nations are obliged to intervene in cases of genocide, being led by the UN, that has not happened. Since the creation of the UN, genocides have clearly occurred in Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Darfur (Sudan), and other mass crimes against humanity (that could perhaps be considered genocide) have occurred in China, Cambodia, East Timor, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. As well, current legislation under consideration in Uganda would authorize murder of all those involved in sexual activity with the same sex, which would currently fall under conspiracy to commit genocide under the convention. However, the UN and its member nations as a whole have not taken major intervention in any of these situations. Often, such as in the situation in 1994 in Rwanda, member nations will avoid referring to a crisis on genocide, so they do not need to intervene. The first time the United States ever referred to a situation as genocide was the Darfur crisis in September 2004, when Sec. of State Colin Powell testified before Congress that "We concluded -- I concluded -- that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the Government of Sudan and the Janjaweed bear responsibility -- and that genocide may still be occurring." In order for a policy to be effective, it must be enforced, and therefore followed. However, a major flaw in many UN policies, such as the 1948 Convention on Genocide, is that it is not enforced, and there are no consequences when it is not followed. For example, the genocide in Darfur has been going on for about 8 years, and yet there has been nothing significant done to stop it, although it is recognized as a genocide. During the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, as it began, almost every nation withdrew their UN peacekeeping troops from Rwanda as the genocide began, and once leadership recognized it was a genocide (which is a whole other topic), it was too late, and they still refused to send peacekeeping troops, although the UN approved additional peacekeepers once it was recognized as genocide.
UN Peacekeepers in Darfur. They exist, but they are too few in numbers
The United Nations was set up in 1945 to achieve admirable goals, and to make the world a better place. Although its impact on the world is definitely positive, and its work is admirable, it relies totally on the cooperation of member countries. If the member countries do not cooperate, the UN is powerless. The UN is often a stalemate on the most urgent and crucial issues, due to its governance set-up, while it can make small steps on less urgent issues. It is difficult to punish a nation, especially a Security Council member, for its actions due to the set-up. When agreements are broken, nothing is done except hindsight by member nations. The United Nations will continue improving the world, but cannot solve all the world’s problems, especially some of the most problematic, due to existing geopolitical issues.
The video above explains everything the United Nations does to improve the world, and they do that. However, failures of the UN seem to be highlighted and successes seem to be underplayed in the news. The United Nations works hard every day to make the world a better place.
