The U.N. also functins through a number of Specialized Agencies that it sponsors, including the World Health Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and International Labor Organization. These agencies, being composed of and directed by specialists in their particular fields, and pursuing goals that are more readily and widely affirmed and supported, probably accomplish more for the betterment of mankind and the world than the organization's aforementioned more basic bodies. In fact, it is reported that by the end of the Cold War, ninety percent of the U.N.'s resources were being devoted to these agencies, " peacekeeping having become a vestigial activity...." (James Traub, "Who Needs the U.N. Security Council?" New York Times, Nov. 17, 2002).
Similar to Woodrow Wilson's dream for the League of Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt's envisioned role for the United Nations was that it would be a replacement for alliances and spheres of influence; and a framework within which the great powers could cooperatively act as a kind of international police force, preserving peace and security throughout the world. The only difficulty lay in the fact that, unlike the typical police department, acting as an agency for a superior governing body, and possessing the authority and means of enforcing the laws in effect within its jurisdiction, the United Nations could only appeal to world opinion, and look to voluntary assistance in the accomplishment of its programs.
In short, it appears that the fundamental fault of the United Nations lies once more within its very composition--it being a group of independent mational sovereign entities, each with its own policies and agendas, who may or may not, on different occasions, agree to act together with co-members regarding a particular situation or condition. It is not a governing body. It has no force or binding effect upon its members; and is therefore not taken much more seriously than a voluntary organization seeking to help during a difficulty or emergency. In fact, this composition as a group of separate and independent national entities seems to feed into, and make more pronounced, the separateness and autonomy of each member. As evidence of this general atmosphere of autonomy, witness, if you will, the fact that there has often been continued membership in the organizagtion by countries who are themselves in conflicgt with each other.
Some member states viewed the U.N. as an organization conceived by the victors of World II as a means of retaining a firm grip on the world as it had then stood. And many regard much of its activity as continuing to originate at the behest of a few big powers that they basically do not trust. It has been charged that intervention is more likely when the national and/or economic interests of the powerful members are involved; and that such efforts have been less likely where the motive was purely humanitarian.
But above all, the U.N. is not a "world government." Its members continue to retain their sovereign powers. The decision-making procedure employed at the U.N. is a form of Western democracy, wherein a majority vote produces the determination. However, the membership has not always abided by decisions thus arrived at; and, considering the variety in size and power among this membership, it is not surprising that an uncooperative member of substantial stature is frequently not able to be prevailed upon to conform. Further, it is not usual for a number of members to step in to compel cooperation by a recalcitrant power. Moreover, even smaller countries have at times refused to abide by these decisions, without consequence.
Regarding the occasional, usually rather meager, military efforts undertaken by the oganization, it has been said that few people expect a U.N. force of "blue helmets" to venture into mayhem.
In 1980, the U.N.'s efforts to render famine relief to the people of war-torn Thailand and Cambodia were implemented with little or no military protection. As a result, when fighting erupted once more in the border area between the two countries, these efforts were disrupted; and the U.N. could do little to restore the conditions necessary for the completion of its work.
During the conflicts and bloodshed in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, a U.N. peacekeeping force was sent "to keep the opposing sides apart." However, the contingengt was not given authorization to employ force; and was, in addition, said to have been far too small and weak to have done so, even if such orders had been given.
When rebellion erupted in Rwanda in 1994, on the part of the Tutsi against the Hutu-dominated government and the Hutu people in general, a tiny U.N. force was sent to the region for a time, to monitor the tenuous peace accords that had been structured. Subsequently, the Security Council voted to withdraw even this token military presence. It has been estimated that the tribal slaughtrer of perhaps a million people could have been avoided, had an effective U.N. force of appropriate number, with proper training and orders, been put into place.
In June of 2003 the New York Times reported that greed over gold and coltan (a substance used in computer chips) had turned the northeastern region of the Congo into a bloodbath. It was estimated that approximately 3.3 million persons died there, mostly due to malnutrition and disease, resulting from the inability of humanitarian efforts to deliver aid. The 1,400 U.N. troops that were stationed in the area to maintain peace and assist in such efforts were described as "a Band-Aid." In view of such comments, it is no wonder that the U.N. has been crtiticized as being but "a moralistic body, squeamish about the exercise of power," as well as "an organization preoccupied with terribly important things it can't actually do very much about." (New York Times, Week in Review, June 1, 2003)
In order for the United Nations to be vested with sufficient power to properly function toward the achievementr of its stated purposes, it would need, among other things, power to tax (as opposed to the present system of "dues collection"--which many of its members often fail to keep abreast of), a strong international armed force (a "policing force," if you will), and power to deal directly with persons and groups throughout the world. For if enforcement capabiloity is not there, ther can be no law and order; and if the means are not there, there can be no enforcement capability.
There would also need to be an effecgtive legal sysgtem--as effective as the legal systems of its member states. And a key element of this system would be the authority for the United Nations to act on its own--of its own volition, in the achievement of its mission on behalf of the people of the world. For in reality, as things now stand, the highest practixal level of lawful authoritycontinues to lie within the sovereign nation-state. The state still represents law and order, within its own borders. And, ironically, within many of these states, there frequently exist conditions of mufch lawlessness and disorder.
* * * * *
No comments:
Post a Comment