The United Nations: The Prevent Defense
Charles W. King
The recent failure of the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the use of chemical weapons by the government of Bashar Al-Assad, let alone take action against it, raises the specter earlier UN inaction. The most gruesome example is the 1994 Rwandan Genocide where almost a million people were killed between April and July of that year. Despite many successes with long term peacekeeping operations throughout the world over its history the United Nations has repeatedly found itself unable to act in a rapid manner to prevent these kind of tragedies. The UN has received significant criticism for its inability to prevent such fast moving atrocities.
The United Nations was not designed to be able to take the swift and decisive action that would be required to intervene to prevent events like the Rwandan Genocide and the use of chemical weapons on civilian populations in civil wars. The post-World War Two institutions created by the Allied powers—the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, European Coal and Steel Community, and International Court of Justice—were each created to preserve the post-war balance of power by accomplishing a specific purpose. The UN’s purpose is both broad and limiting. The United Nations exists to prevent World War Three.
Like the American Congress and Senate, the structure of the UN is designed to hamper, not facilitate, efficient passage of resolutions. The General Assembly of the United Nations is a forum for debate and discussion with little concrete power. The UN Security Council has more concrete powers to act, but has five permanent members, each of which possesses veto power. This is a recipe for deadlock, not action. The UN’s largest international action, to intervene in the Korean War, was only possible because at the time the Soviet Union was boycotting the Security Council due to the seat for China being held by the Republic of China on Taiwan. The return of the USSR to the Security Council and the accession of the People’s Republic of China to the Council in Taiwan’s place have prevented further decisive actions.
The United Nations inability to mount such a decisive action since the Korean War belies the fact that it has succeeded at its primary objective. There has not been a direct conflict between the world’s great powers since 1945. While there have been numerous proxy wars between client states, the great powers took great pains to make sure they did not engage directly. This is in part due to the specter of nuclear war, but that ignores the role that the UN plays as a forum. The United Nations played an important role in the peaceful resolution to multiple Cold War crises, including the Berlin Airlift and the Cuban Missile Crisis. As an official forum for nations to address each other the UN served a key role in preventing any of these crises from escalating to a nuclear war.
The United Nations’ inability to take rapid decisive action to prevent atrocities is not a fatal flaw. It is a side effect of the organization’s specific objective, preventing crises from escalating into another World War, and how it was structured to accomplish that goal. It is increasingly effective in its other efforts to help refugees, promote human rights, and mitigate famine and preventable disease, but its primary purpose remains the same. The UN remains an important breakwater against escalating tensions in the 21st century.
Further Reading
Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991, (New York, NY: Vintage, 1996).