UN: A Failed Attempt to Tackle Anarchy


Is the UN an attempt to tackle anarchy?

Kenneth Waltz said that under anarchy, without a supra-national authority to make and enforce law, “war occurs because there's nothing to prevent it. Among states, as among men, there is no automatic adjustment of interests. In the absence of a supreme authority there is then the constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force”

The UN was created, in the aftermath of the Second World War, to maintain international peace and security. As the preamble of the UN Charter states its aim is to “to save succeeding generations from a scourge of war.”, being the body in charge of acting as the world's keeper the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). This council is a very special organ in the international law for two reasons:

 1. It is the only body that can impose binding obligations on states.
 2. It is the only body that can authorise states to use military force (when not in self-defence).

Although its main task is to maintain peace, or rather the absence of war, the UNSC is nevertheless a political body afflicted with the usual political diseases and therefore its role to maintain peace and stability is often hampered by national interests of the nations that compose it.
As individuals protect their own interests so do States, thus if a member of the UNSC has an interest in not keeping peace and stability in a certain region, the council will not be able to play its role – a perfect example of this is Russia's annexation of Crimea and its involvement in the Ukraine conflict (as a permanent member of the UNSC, Russia would veto any resolution drafted to condemn its direct support to Rebels in Eastern Ukraine; guaranteeing thus the extension of tensions); this being said, it is safe to say that the UN has not tackled this act of anarchy.

The UN, just like the EU and others, is an institution intended to provide information (intended to decrease uncertainty of behaviour between states), reduce transaction costs, make commitments more credible and facilitate reciprocity. It is also said that institutions must be independent.
It all seems quite straightforward on paper; however, looking at the UN (and the EU, for instance) we need to doubt the credibility of such institutions and their capability to deliver what they promise. For example, when UN peacekeepers are deployed to prevent escalation of conflicts or to keep peace after a conflict; but instead they rape women and children, how much does the UN contribute to the stability of a nation, or even the world? When the UN smuggles weapons into areas of conflict (as it has occurred in South Sudan, last year), how much does the UN contribute to peace and stability of a country, or even a region? When the UN serves as a platform to single out and immorally attack specific countries (nurturing thus divisions and discriminations), how much does this institution contribute to peace and stability of the world?
The UN depends financially upon its member states. For those who know how politics really works, this dependence can be translated into UN favour to the highest bidder (or set of bidders); therefore, how can this institution be truly independent?
In light of all of the above, it is safe to say that the UN may contribute to anarchic actions in the future.

“War occurs because there's nothing to prevent it.” – idem

The United Nations, as an international institution, has not proved that it is consistent to the interests of individual countries, and because it reflects the preferences and power of the most influential (i.e. highest bidder) states in the global system, it isn't capable of preventing countries from going to war as we have seen since its inception (e.g. 1st Indochina War, Greek Civil War, Indo-Pakistani war, Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, Korean War, Costa Rican Civil War, Algerian War, Suez Crisis, Basque Conflict, Congo War, African Wars of Independence, Sino-Indian War, Shifta War, Rhodesian Bush War, Six-Day War, The Troubles, Bangladesh Liberation War, Lebanese Civil War, Shaba I and II, Soviet War in Afghanistan, Iran-Iraq War, Falklands War, Lebanon War, Sri Lankan Civil War, US invasion of Panama, Iraq-Kuwait War, Rwandan Civil War, Kosovo War, Afghanistan War, Iraq War, Syrian Civil war, Libyan Civil War, Mali War, Ukraine-Russia War - click for a more comprehensive list).
Having said this, if the UN is an attempt to tackle anarchy (i.e. to prevent wars from occurring), it has grossly failed; and it only subsists because it is a quasi-guaranteed job-generator for politicians (and derivatives).

Comments

  1. The United Nations has never served the purpose it was supposed to serve. It is jut a parking place for influential bureaucrats from memeber nations to do nothing, make a lot of tax free dollars and retire in comfort. It is time that we abolished it and the World Bank too for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      Never, it's true. I agree: just like the League of Nations died, the UN must die too - it has failed and our tax money should not be squandered in futile endeavours.
      But even though we're right, all those employed bureaucrats will fight to keep their jobs; so even if the UN shuts down, they will probably come up with a different one just to employ all those people again...my goodness.

      Rummy, thank you so much for your great comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121190/can-ban-ki-moon-save-united-nations-irrelevance?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=TNR%20Daily%20Newsletter&utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%20-%203%2F4%2F15

      Delete
    3. Rummy,

      Thanks for that link. Wow, so the general secretary (Ban Ki-Moon) doesn't even bother to participate in discussions because “He likes to get a consolidated recommendation. He doesn’t want to navigate between people debating in front of him,” - now I'm wondering about what's his exact job description at the UN could be; to be a messenger? To convey the result of his team's work? Now I understand his reactions when it comes to certain countries. And this piece practically calls him a bureaucratic puppet.

      This article is very interesting for it gives a glimpse into how the "jobs machine" works. It's even worse than I thought.

      Cheers, my friend

      Delete
  2. If I remember correctly, UN stands for Useless Nations. I will avoid getting too cynical and suggesting that the real purpose of its founding was to mutually profit from conflict. Part of me still wants to honor the idea of negotiating to find a way to avoid and mitigate the effects of war, even if I think it to be hopelessly naive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Looney :D!

      I agree with your "cynicism" though. Yes, we should always give negotiations/diplomacy a chance; however, we must always be careful not to abuse the concept for self-serving purposes. Have you noticed that while "we" negotiate with Iran for a nuclear deal, that country is wreaking havoc around the world in impunity? It's shameful.

      UN = Useless Nations, eh? The Jewish community says UN = Useless Nothing lol.

      Looney, thank you so much for your comment :D

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. We need hopelessly naive idealists like you around Looney. They will be the solution eventually for our current problems.

      Delete
    3. @Rummuser, the solution to my current problems is usually just to re-define them as successes!

      Delete
  3. I don't want to sound cruel but it seems to me that the Useless Nothing was created to “to save WESTERN succeeding generations from a scourge of war.” cause the rest of the world can just burn for all they care! They are a complete waste of tax payer money, the UN should be abolished.
    Thought of the week: you damn right the Saudis would run to Israel at the first sign of an Iranian nuke. Did you see their reaction to Bibi's speech in congress? Yeah, they supported him and called Obama foolish. The world is up side down, Max.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Joe :D!

      It kind of does, doesn't it? Just read the link that Rummy (Rummuser) shared above: it will give you a even broader idea of how bad that institution really is.

      I did. Now the Saudis are saying that the US should listen to PM Netanyahu: ha!
      Yes, indeed, it is.

      Joe, thank you so much for your comment, my friend. You were missed :D.

      פורים שמח

      Delete
  4. Max, the UN today is nothing but a podium from where all the anti-Israel/Semites vomit their hatred, a stage from where the hysterical feminists and the environmentalists vomit their nonsense and the Human Rights Activists accuse everybody of violations except those countries that factually violate human rights everyday. It's the house of ridicule!
    Yeah, kudos for writing this post, Max!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Celeste :D!

      As a friend would say: now say what's really on your mind lol :). But you're right, it is the house of ridicule.
      Thank you, darling *bowing*.

      Cêcê, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. Xii, you rattled cages with this one. If your readers are politicians, they probably felt hurt by this post Max: you can't mess with people's jobs hehehe! But between both of us: good job. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Leila :D!

      Have I? I don't think so; at least I haven't felt anything out of the ordinary ;).
      If they felt they, which I doubt it, then they need to grow a thicker skin and do a better job at convinces us of the relevance of the UN.
      Thanks, love.

      Leila, thank you so much for your comment, girl :D.

      Hambanini

      Delete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers