Poli Sci 362 Midterm

Rubab Khan

Answer to Question 1

The development of the U.N. was established after the Second World War. Before the

U.N. we had the League of Nations. It was dissolved once it failed in preventing a

Second World War. The League of Nations was simply formed with the primary function

to disarm Nations. The U.N. was formed with a plethora of functions outlined in its

charter with different organs overseeing different tasks. The U.N. has been fairly

successful in most of its roles because it learned from its predecessor the League of

Nations.

The term, United Nations was first used by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt and

Churchill developed The Declaration of the United Nations on January 1, 1942. It was

actually formed between all nations fighting against the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy,

and the Soviet Union), promising not to form any other alliances. It was basically stating

that once the war was won, a formal peacekeeping organization, called the United

Nations, would be officially established to promote peace. By 1952 it was up and running

(Lecture). It took into account problems of its predecessor the League of Nations.

The U.N. speaks from its outset of a more expanded role. Unlike the League of

Nations it’s primarily role is not just peace and security. The role of safeguarding peace is

given to the Security Council and General Assembly. The Security Council is made up of

five permanent members-The U.S., China, France, UK and Germany. There are also ten

members elected for two-year terms. The P-5 hold veto power (theory of UN collective
Security,pg7-8). Veto Power basically means any one decision made by the Security

Council can be overturned if even one member of the P-5 vote against it. The Charter

outlines that the U.N. will not impede on state rights. It will respect sovereignty of other

states. The U.N. speaks from its outset of an expanded role. It wants to promote

development, free trade, human rights and collective security (Lecture). The General

Assembly is an open forum of discussion where all states are represented. Heads of

different organizations oversee functions of U.N. are also elected here (Theory of U.N.

collective Security,pg 9).

In contrast the League of Nations was made to make sure no more wars would

happen. It’s main basis was to keep Germany down. It was to keep the balance as well as

mutual peace. According to Smith (International Politics,pg 319) Henig suggests that the

League was endowed with five roles :it was to act as a standing international conference

on disputes ; as a guarantee body; as an agency for pursuing disarmament; as a part of

and executor of the post-war settlement; and as a co-coordinator of 'non political' and

technical bodies. It was basically made to insure peace. Unfortunately, World War II

caused the League of Nations to fail in its primary purpose. It had some successes

however but these successes were not a requirement of its formation. The League was

responsible for the Geneva Conference which till this day is cited and followed (Lecture).

The main problem was that most nations did not want to submit to the League (Smith,pg

320-322).

The U.N. has one strong point that the League of Nations never had and that is the
U.S. as its member. The U.N. is a diplomatic, regulatory body. It is also determined not

to make the same mistakes as the League of Nations. At times in the past, such as in the

1970s and 80s the U.N. was put on the back burner. The U.S. made decisions outside of

the U.N (Introduction Theory of U.N. Collective Security). However, the U.N. is not

there as a governing body. It is there as a plural and decentralized body (Introduction

Theory of U.N. Collective Security). It has had its successes and failures. The Kuwait

operation when troops were sent to stop Saddam Hussein can be cited as a success.

However, the U.N. is and continues to perform the duties of a diplomatic body.

According to its preamble and charter, it is operating successfully.

The League of Nations failed because it’s main purpose of being created was as a

body to disarm other nations and prevent a Second World War. The rise of Nazi Germany

and World War II showed that the League of Nations failed in its main purpose.

However, the U.N. was formed and separated into subdivisions to carry out multiple

operations. Each section of the U.N. serves a specific purpose but all work together to

promote the goals of the U.N. charter. Each U.N. mission is never a success but when

observing the charter and the type of body the U.N. is, it has not failed in its role of

diplomacy.

Answer to Question 2

When Ghali speaks of ending absolute sovereignty in relation to peacekeeping, he means

no one nation can do as they please because in the modern world of today all countries

are intertwined with one another. It is soft power not hard power that will work.

Sovereignty no longer means the same as it did since the formation of the League of
Nations. Since the U.N. charter was ratified, peace keeping has changed from something

forced to something overseen.

When we look at the definition of Sovereignty it basically means supreme power,

especially over a political body, freedom from external control and autonomy according

to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The thing is that in Ghalis an Agenda for peace he

says The United Nations is a gathering of sovereign States and what it can do depends on

the common ground that they create between them (An Agenda for Peace, Introduction).

Ghali goes on to state conviction has grown, among nations large and small, that an

opportunity has been regained to achieve the great objectives of the Charter - a United

Nations capable of maintaining international peace and security, of securing justice and

human rights and of promoting, in the words of the Charter, "social progress and better

standards of life in larger freedom". This opportunity must not be squandered. The

Organization must never again be crippled as it was in the era that has now passed (An

Agenda for Peace, Introduction). If you ask me, this means that no one state can be

completely autonomic. In a way, States give up their absolute sovereignty to achieve a

greater goal-collective security. They are all entangled with one another and work with

each other to maintain as well as achieve international security.

When troops are needed and sent by the U.N. countries pool their resources

together to form an army. This army is no longer under the control of its state. It is under

the mandates of the U.N. When going to a different country, they are not allowed to

impede upon a states rights. They are simply there to keep states in check. These troops

may not attack (Lecture). One could even say they are there as baby sitters. Troops do as

little as possible. Their presence alone is supposed to deter and change international
relations. They act as a buffer and monitor. U.N. Troops are not supposed to get in the

way. U.N. Troops who violate these mandates are sent home. The violation changes

diplomacy credibility of the U.N (Lecture). Peace keeping in the 90s was mainly

buffering, monitoring and reporting. In today’s world we need ‘soft laws’. It can take on

multiple forms when a formal agreement is not possible. This is endorsed in 2005 in the

UN sponsored World Summit endorsement. It acknowledges the responsibility to protect

and seen as the soft law basis for humanitarian intervention especially when peoples

rights are not protected by a state. When these rights are at risk and can cause genocide,

ethnic cleansing or other major human rights violations the R2P comes in (Mingst,

International Organizations, pg 11).

For example, when the partition between Pakistan and India occurred, U.N. sent

troops as a military observer group in 24rth January 1949. From 1995 to December 2004

NATOS presence in Bosnia is an example of successful U.N. peacekeeping missions

(International Peace and Security, pg 23). Reliance on Regional Organizations cannot be

done to maintain security as in the example of Zimbabwe and the African Union

(International Peace and Security, pg. 22-23). To say whether the U.N has been

successful in peacekeeping operations or not depends on ones Point of View. However,

when you look at peacekeeping from the United Nations perspective, they have been

successful. This is because U.N. peacekeeping goals are mainly to not intervene but just

oversee and report back (lecture). The United Nations Charter itself states that it will

respect state sovereignty but will keep states in check (Lecture). Effectually if you do not

remain peaceful the U.N. will force you to remain peaceful. Conversely, troops are not

allowed to use force. It is the Security Council alone that decides when and what force
will be used (Lecture). The theory is basically that the United Nations presence should be

force enough to perpetuate peace.

This is why conditions of truly effective U.N. peacekeeping are more conceptual.

Ideally, one could say that successful U.N. peacekeeping is done once troops have landed

at their designated spot because their presence alone is supposed to have an effect on

international relations. Ideally, it is the hope that this presence alone persuades an end to

the conflict. Since the ratification of the U.N. charter it has been agreed that all states ban

together to prevent each other from using coercion to gain advantage. No one government

can conquer another or disturb peace in fear of retribution from fellow U.N. member

states (International Peace and Security, pg5).

Sovereignty has without a doubt changed since the ratification of the U.N. charter.

Rather Sovereignty of States has become more of a de facto Sovereignty because all

states are now intertwined with each other. No one state has complete power. There is

still the U.N. to answer to as well as risk of hurting international relations. Though U.N.

peacekeeping may not completely stop violence, its outright disapproval and presence of

troops can go a long way to send a clear message. Again, the United Nations main goal is

not to engage in active combat during peacekeeping missions. It is to act as a cushion and

cause fear of hurting international relations.