The realist attitude of states is particularly evident regarding the area of security and defense, where such self-orientated beliefs often lead states to be engaged in a ‘security dilemma’. In this case, “attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and the measures of others as potentially threatening,” (Herz 1950, p.157)
The existence of such dilemmas is becoming increasingly evident in today’s global society and is exampled in the current crisis surrounding North Korea, where diplomatic talks are underway in order to persuade North Korea to cease work on a nuclear program. The security dilemma was summed up in a statement by the country’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Kim Yong-il: “We can give up the nuclear program if the US drops its hostile policy towards North Korea,” ( ‘Korea accused of nuke test threat’ 2003, p. 24). Dunne (Baylis and Smith 2001, p. 163) writes the inevitability of such dilemmas means “as long as states continue to exist in relation to one another, the liberal project of providing peace and progress will forever be undermined.” Thus it can be seen that the fundamentally liberal core of the UN conflicts with the essentially realist nature of world politics, posing largely irreconcilable problems for the successful practice of the UN.
Adding further to the irrelevance of the United Nations is the changing nature of international acts of aggression and the inability of the United Nations to deal with the rise of revolutionary warfare. The United Nations Charter was created at a time when international violence took form in state-to-state combat. Indeed Murphy (1983, p. 169) notes that models for the charter were “Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia and the march of Hitler’s troops into Poland.” However, in recent times, this traditional form of international aggression has been transcended by revolutionary warfare, namely terrorism. Identifiable blocs of aggression have been replaced by smaller, largely indefinable pockets of ‘resistance’. This is exampled by the rise of groups such as Al Qaida, Jamah Islamiah and Hamas. These groups have been largely responsible for acts of violence that have recently dominated the international scene, such as September 11, the Bali bombings and stealth bombings in Jerusalem.
According to Righter (1995, p. 21) such revolutionary violence in the form of international terrorism represents the most serious challenge the United Nations has had to face since its conception. Admittedly, the UN has adopted international antiterrorist conventions, the basic purpose of which is to establish international cooperation between states in preventing and suppressing international terrorism (The United Nations resolution 1269 1999, ).
However, many argue the United Nations has not risen to the challenge embodied in revolutionary warfare. Murphy is one such critic and writes that countries subject to acts of international terror are not interested in peaceful solutions. “They are pressing hard for victory ie: the defeat of their opponents and their replacement in power with allies,” (1983, pg169). This is exampled in the reaction of the United States to the September 11 attacks of 2001. America’s need to quell their patriotic rage with a sense of justice represented in retaliatory action was demonstrated in George Bush’s speech on the day of prayer: “This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing,” (Bush 2001, ). And again in his speech to congress: “Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done,” (Bush 2001, )
Furthermore, Roberts and Kingsbury (1995, p. 52) suggests that governments are often very reluctant to acknowledge their inability to handle acts of internal terrorism, and are even more hesitant to admit that such acts are threatening international peace and security. While this is no fault of the United Nations and has no reflection on the efficiency of the organisation, its relevance as a peacekeeping tool depends on the ability of the states to recognise problems and acknowledge the role of the UN in resolving these problems.
Finally, Freddoso (2003, p. 3) suggests that the inability of the United Nations to enforce its mandates designed to maintain peace, has resulted in waning respect for its authority. Within the United Nations, “primary responsibility” for maintaining peace and international security falls to the Security Council. Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council is authorized to make decisions and recommendations and decisions regarding economic or military sanctions against states that pose a threat to international peace (Charter of the United Nations ). According to Article 25 of the Charter, any such decision made by the Council is binding on member states, although the permanent members have the right to exercise veto power to prevent action to which they are opposed, (Patil 1992, p. 5)
However, According to Murphy, the United Nations Council “has been rendered largely null because the five permanent members failed to agree on the armed forces to be made available to the Security Council in accordance with the terms of special agreements concluded between the council and the member states.” (1983, p. 21) This means that further to the fact the UN is thus inhibited from making binding decisions to use force, the Charter idea of a “Security Council acting in concert and supported by a permanent peace keeping force” is essentially flawed. Bertrand (1997, p. 82) notes that without this force, the UN remains fundamentally an instrument of persuasion. While the Security Council can authorize states to use force to contain aggression, “it cannot direct the operation as it was intended when the Charter was formed.” .
Additionally, suggests while it is widely recognised there is an increasing need for global mediation, this may merely serve to further ostracize the UN from . The writes, “the greater the public need for global mediation and centers for cooperation, the sharper will be the assessment of the global organisation’s capacities and the greater the readiness to use alternative channels where the UN is judged inadequate.” _______ furthers on this notion, suggesting that the global community is unsatisfied with the UN as an answer when they see the need for physical action. He writes that “realists, especially American realists traumatised by September 11th 2001, argue that every village needs a policeman, and the only one on hand may be America.
Indeed it is widely argued by critics of the UN that one of the major contributing factors to the organisation’s irrelevance is that it is subject to the whim of America, arguably its most powerful member (Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003, p81). Hanly (2003, p25) writes “UN has become irrelevant because the U.S. either uses it to further its imperial policies when it is able to do so, or ignores it when it cannot.” The primary supporting example of this is the recent unauthorized invasion of Iraq by America. President Bush displayed this disregard for decisions made within the Security Council by stating if the UN would not carry out its obligations, then the U.S. would.
Thus the inability of the U.N to control its member states in times of critical importance destroys its credibility and contributes to its irrelevance.
In conclusion, the United Nations is a tool that has become obsolete in regards to fulfilling its mission under the Charter of 1945. This essay has demonstrated this through three points. Firstly, the liberal ideology of peace and compromise it upholds, while noble, is undermined by the realist nature of member states. Secondly, the rise of revolutionary warfare in the form of international terrorism has presented a challenge, which the United Nations has so far failed to meet. Finally, the lack of authoritative and binding power of the UN to enforce its mandates means that its mission under the Charter cannot be fulfilled. For these reasons it can be argued that the United Nations, as it currently operates, does not hold a relevant position within the current global arena.
Words 1654 (not including references)
REFERENCES
Baylis, J. and Smith, S. (Ed.). The globalisation of world politics. New York: Oxford University Press
Bertrand, M. (1997) The United Nations; past, present and future. Boston: Kluwer Law International.
Hanly, K. (2003). “On the (ir)relevance of the United Nations.” Canadian Dimension, 37, May, 25-27.
Murphy, J. (1983) The United Nations and the control of international violence. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Patil, A. (1992) The United Nations veto in world affairs 1946 – 1990. London: Mansell
Righter, R. (1995) Utopia lost: The United Nations and world order. New York: Century Fund Press.
Roberts, A. and Kingsbury, B. (1995) United Nations, divided world. New York: Clarendon Paperbacks.
Journals
Annan, K. (2002). The Futurist, vol. 36, May, pp. 18-21.
Herz, J. (1950). Idealist internationalism and the security dilemma. World Politics,
Irrelevant, illegitimate or indispensable? (2003, February 2). Economist, p.24.
United Nations 1945, Charter of the United Nations, URL (02/07/03)
Korea accused of nuke test threats (2003, August 30) Courier Mail, p. 18.
Bush, G.W. (2001). National Day of Prayer,
Bush, G.W. (2001) Joint Session of Congress, )
Freddoso, D. (2003) Has UN become 'irrelevant debating society'? Human Events Vol. 59. March, pp 3-4.
