UN - Challenges and Change (2015)

7/23/2019 UN - Challenges and Change (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/un-challenges-and-change-2015 1/27

WWW.CHOICES.EDU ■ WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY ■ THE CHOICES PROGRAM

The United Nations:Challenges and Change 1

Introduction: The UN Today

The United States played an important role

in the founding of the United Nations in

1945. After the terrible destruction of World

War II, people in the United States believedthe United Nations could provide the founda-

tion for maintaining international peace and

security. They were proud of their leadership

and vision and hoped that it would establish

the basis for a more peaceful world. Yet today,

the U.S. commitment to the UN is uncertain.

Within the United States, the role of the

UN is part of a larger debate about U.S. foreign

policy. The role of the UN raises an important

question about how the United States should

address its security concerns. Should the Unit-ed States protect its security by cooperating

and seeking consensus with other countries

at the UN? Many people in the United States

wonder if the UN helps or hinders U.S. foreign

policy. Many others remain committed to the

organization.

Internationally, much discussion about the

UN’s future involves the question of U.S. coop-

eration with the organization. The debate is

about the role of the UN, its effectiveness, and

its fairness. Some have called the UN a placefor humanity to unite for peace and security,

while others have deemed it naïve and ideal-

istic. While upholding faith in the aims of the

UN, some criticize the way the organization

operates. Some critics accuse the UN of serv-

ing only the interests of powerful states, while

others regard it as an inefficient and meddling

institution.

Today, the world faces threats that no one

foresaw at the time of the UN’s founding in

1945. AIDS, terrorism, the spread of nuclearweapons, and global climate change were

not international concerns when the UN was

formed. Some wonder if the UN has the capac-

ity to face the challenges of a changing world.

Others note that the UN’s success, above all,

depends on the commitment its membershave to working together to solve problems.

They argue that the UN itself does not fail or

succeed, the countries that make up its mem-

bership do.

“ The United Nations is only as good as

its members, especially its primary

members, want it to be.”

—Brent Scowcroft, former U.S. nationalsecurity advisor

Today, the UN provides a forum where

diplomats can address some of the world’s

immediate and long-term problems. The UN

has programs spanning the globe in numerous

areas: for example, peacekeeping and prevent-

ing conflict, caring for refugees, and reducing

poverty, to name a few. It has more than fifty

thousand employees around the world per-

forming a wide variety of tasks.

In the following days, you will have the

opportunity to immerse yourself in the his-tory of the UN and the debates about its role.

Part I will introduce the history and charter

of the UN. Part II will examine the role of the

United Nations in the world. After complet-

ing the readings, you will be asked to consider

the U.S. role in the UN and how the organiza-

tion should be reformed, if at all. These issues

connect to other, more fundamental questions

about international relations. What role should

the UN play in the world? What should be the

role of the United States in world affairs?







The Leagueof Nations

The League of Nations

was the predecessor of

the United Nations. The

League was a far-reachingeffort to prevent war and

maintain international

peace. It lasted for twenty-

six years, between 1920

and 1946, and its failures

led to the creation of the

United Nations.

How did the League of

Nations intend to serve

as the “conscienceof the world?”

The United States en-

tered World War I in April

1917. Nine months earlier, President Wilson

had proposed a plan to end the fighting and

prevent future conflict. Wilson suggested the

creation of a new international organization.

The organization would eliminate the causes

of war by encouraging open diplomacy, secur-

ing freedom of the seas, developing free trade,

and reducing the production and trade in

arms. He called this permanent global organi-

zation the League of Nations. Wilson believed

that if states held one another accountable for

preserving peace, each would behave more

conscientiously in its international relations.

In this way, Wilson hoped the League of Na-

tions would serve as the “conscience of the

world.”

In a document known as the League of

Nations Covenant, Wilson and other world

leaders outlined the principles of the proposed

organization. A central feature of the covenant

was the idea of “collective security.” Collec-

tive security was based on a member’s promise

“to respect and preserve against external ag-

gression the territorial integrity and existing

political independence of all Members of the

League.” It urged states to respond to an attack

on any League member as though it were an

attack on itself.

Many people in the United States bristled

at the idea of collective security. Critics of the

League of Nations said signing would obli-

gate U.S. troops to fight in conflicts abroad.

They worried that joining the League would

threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

Furthermore, Wilson’s conflicts with congres-

sional leaders hampered any possibilities for

compromise. Wilson, a Democrat, did not

include Republicans in the drafting of the cov-enant. In response to this snub, his opponents

in the Senate were skeptical of his ideas before

they even reached the table. In 1920, the U.S.

Senate defied Wilson and rejected U.S. partici-

pation in the League.

Why did the League of Nations fail?

The organization began to fail after the

League of Nations Covenant took effect in

January 1920. The League did not have the

power to compel sovereign states to respectits authority. Members had little incentive

to honor their pledges of cooperating to stop

aggression, protect human rights, and limit

the production and spread of armaments. The

League required unanimous decisions, and dif-

ferences of opinion prevented it from acting in

many cases.

The League struggled to live up to its

The “Big Four”—Prime Minister Lloyd George of Britain, Prime MinisterOrlando of Italy, Premier Clemenceau of France, and U.S. President Wilson—played leading roles in the creation of the League of Nations. May 1919.

P h o t o c o u r t e s y o f N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s a n d R e c o r d s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n .



THE CHOICES PROGRAM ■ WATSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, BROWN UNIVERSITY ■ WWW.CHOICES.EDU

The United Nations:Challenges and Change4

promise of being a global organization. Be-

cause the covenant’s authors were enemies of

Germany during World War I, the covenant

reflected anti-German sentiments. Britain and

France saw to it that Germany and a number of

other important countries, such as the Soviet

Union, were excluded from League member-

ship. Their exclusion, along with the fact that

the United States never joined, diminished the

League’s credibility.

“ [The] League was considered

a European and not a world

organization.”

—Lord Edward Grey,British foreign minister

The UN Takes ShapeWhen World War II (1939-1945) erupted,

the League of Nations’ goal of preventing

another world conflict had clearly failed. Not

only did the death toll of World War II surpass

that of World War I, but the fighting caused

unparalleled destruction. The war also alerted

the international community to the human

capability for mass execution of civilians on

an unprecedented scale, known as genocide.

The search for a lasting solution to conflict had

never been more urgent.

What conditions made

a new international

organization possible?

Japan’s attack on Pearl

Harbor and U.S. involve-

ment in World War II made

people in the United States

aware of how connected

countries and their con-

flicts could be. As a result,the U.S. public became

more open to international

cooperation regarding mat-

ters of peace and security.

Other governments saw

new value in international

organizations as well. While

governments resolved to

abandon the League of

Nations, they focused on creating an inter-

national organization that could serve as the

League’s replacement.

“ If it [the League] were to disappear

today, nearly every treaty of a political character which has been

concluded during these thirteen years

would vanish with it…. A state of

chaos would result…. [T]he first task

which would confront the statesmen

on the League’s disappearance would

be to reinvent the League.”

—League Secretary-General Eric Drummon

President Franklin R. Roosevelt, who had

denounced the creation of the League in 1932,took the lead in creating a new international

institution, the United Nations. Recalling

President Wilson’s inability to get the League

of Nations Covenant passed in Congress, Roos-

evelt did not bring the United Nations Charter

to Congress for approval until he knew he had

the votes to guarantee ratification.

How was the UN established?

President Roosevelt died before the

United Nations could be officially established.However, his successor, Harry S. Truman

(1945-1953), was determined to carry out

Egypt signs the UN Charter, June 6, 1945, San Francisco. U n i t e d N a t i o n s p h o t o l i b r a r y .











veto power. They worried that disagreements

among the permanent members of the Security

Council could create deadlocks that would

hinder the UN’s ability to maintain peace and

security. Although permanent members vowed

not to obstruct operations of the council with

their veto power, many states were skeptical

of this promise. At the same time, they con-

ceded that the full participation of the five

permanent members was essential for the UN

to succeed where the League of Nations had

failed.

While the status of the five permanent

members of the Security Council has not

changed since 1945, it has not gone unchal-

lenged. Two important historical periods—the

Cold War and the era of decolonization—had

dramatic consequences for international

politics and highlight some of the issues sur-

rounding representation and power in the UN.

■ The Cold WarMany of the original UN members’ con-

cerns over the veto power quickly proved

valid. Following World War II, the United

States and the Soviet Union became involved

in a long, drawn-out conflict that caused more

than forty years of hostility between these two

states and their allies. This conflict, known

as the Cold War, lasted roughly between 1947

and 1989 and limited the Security Council’s

ability to respond to global issues.

What was the role of the UN

during the Cold War?

While the UN Charter enshrined interna-

tional cooperation, the United States and the

Soviet Union—two permanent members of the

Security Council—were locked in an ideologi-

cal battle during the Cold War. The Security

Council could not act without their joint

permission. The Security Council passed an

average of fifteen resolutions a year during the

Cold War. Today, the Security Council typi-

cally passes one resolution per week.

Nevertheless, three important develop-

ments took place during this period. First, the

UN established a peacekeeping program and

began its first operation in 1948. During the

Cold War, there were eighteen peacekeeping

operations around the world. Second, the UN

became an international leader on issues of

development, human rights, and the environ-

In July 1967, the UN hosted the “Seminar on Apartheid, Racial Discrimination, and Colonialism in SouthernAfrica.“ The photograph above depicts the opening ceremony in Kitwe, Zambia.

U N P h o t o # 1 1 6 2 8 0 .





ment. Finally, less powerful countries of the

world discovered that the UN was a forum

to voice their concerns. The UN became an

important tool for many African and Southeast

Asian countries that were striving for indepen-

dence from colonialism.

■ DecolonizationAt the same time the Cold War was taking

place, decolonization movements were grow-

ing in strength across the world. Colonies in

Africa and Asia became independent states

and gained UN membership. The UN played

a significant role encouraging independence

for colonies. In 1960, the General Assembly

adopted the “Declaration on the Granting

of Independence to Colonial Countries and

Peoples.” The declaration reinforced the UN’s

commitment to self-determination.

“ The subjection of peoples to alien

subjugation, domination and

exploitation constitutes a denial

of fundamental human rights, is

contrary to the charter of the United

Nations and is an impediment to

the promotion of world peace and

cooperation.”

—“Declaration on the Granting ofIndependence to Colonial Countries and

Peoples,” December 14, 1960

With increased membership, criticism

of the distribution of power on the Security

Council grew louder. Newly independent

countries argued that the Security Council

underrepresented countries from Latin Amer-

ica, Africa, and Asia. In 1965, the UN General

Assembly added four nonpermanent (elected)

seats to the council, bringing the total to the

current number of ten. The Assembly also es-

tablished quotas for the number of seats filled

by different regions of the world.

Overall, decolonization rapidly expanded

UN membership from 51 in 1945 to 159 coun-

tries in 1990.

How did the end of the Cold War

affect the United Nations?

Improving relations between the United

States and the Soviet Union brought the Cold

War to an end in the late 1980s. When the So-

viet Union dissolved, former Soviet republics became independent countries and UN mem-

bership grew even more.

The end of the Cold War was a rebirth for

the UN. Cooperation among the permanent

members grew, while demands on the UN

were greater than ever. One of the pressing

concerns was how to appropriately address the

fact that membership had nearly quadrupled

since the UN Charter had first been signed.

In addition, the changing nature of global

concerns required the Security Council to con-sider the reach of its authority.

___________

The next section will discuss the leading

concerns of the UN today—representation

in the Security Council, peacekeeping, and

human rights—and consider several of the

debates surrounding these topics.





Part II: Debating the UN’s Role

As you read in Part I, the victorious pow-

ers of World War II established the UN to

maintain “international peace and security.”

The importance of this primary aim has notdecreased since the UN’s founding in 1945,

but the world has changed dramatically since

then.

Maintaining security in 1945 meant

protecting states from war. Today, security is

no longer solely a matter of war and peace

between states. In addition to safeguarding

countries from the attacks of aggressive states,

defending human rights has become a leading

concern for the United Nations. Terrorism, cli-

mate change, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and thespread of nuclear weapons are also important

issues that were not on the agenda in 1945. By

all accounts, the UN faces big challenges.

“ Today we face events of such

magnitude and complexity.

Diplomats of this generation now

have the obligation to envision a

second phase, a new chapter on

collective action so as to eradicate

these modern threats.” —Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Derbez,

September 24, 2004

Part II of the reading focuses on three

major components of UN work that are highly

debated: the Security Council, peacekeep-

ing, and human rights. Each section discusses

real cases that demonstrate the successes and

shortcomings of the UN. In addition, each

helps address key questions about the UN in

three areas: representation, mandate, and ef-fectiveness.

Representation: Who should hold power

within the UN? This is among the most lively

and heated controversies today. Some coun-

tries express frustration that decision-making

power is not shared equally among states.

Mandate: What is the scope of the UN’s

responsibilities? For example, should the

Security Council decide all matters of war and

peace?

Effectiveness: How should the UN be orga-

nized and run? Can the UN be more effective?

Some critics contend that the UN is inefficient

and ineffective.

The Security CouncilThe UN has many critics who argue that a

few powerful states control the organization.

In particular, they accuse the Security Council

of placing great power in the hands of only a

few. The Security Council holds the primary

responsibility for maintaining internationalpeace and security. Only the Security Council

has the legal authority to enforce its decisions

through diplomatic or military action.

Since the UN’s formation after World War

II, the United States, the United Kingdom,

France, Russia, and China have led the Se-

curity Council. Each of these countries has

a permanent seat on the council. Any one of

these five states can stop a resolution from

passing by vetoing it. Many other members

find the makeup of the council unfair. Somedesire a Security Council that accurately

reflects the political situation in the world

today—not 1945.

“ The time has come for world views to

prevail at the UN, rather than those

of the West.”

—Cameron Duodo,Ghanaian journalist

Recent proposals for reforming the UNcall for expanding the permanent membership

of the Security Council. Member states are

divided about which states should be added or

whether the current system needs changing at

all.

In addition to more democratic represen-

tation, debates about reform revolve around

the question of the Security Council’s reach

and effectiveness. In reviewing the history





of the UN, some critics point to conflicts in

which the Security Council did not intervene

but should have, like the 1994 genocide in

Rwanda. Other critics cite instances of conflict

in which the Security Council did authorize

intervention, as in Timor-Leste in 1999. They

claim that the UN

overstepped the bound-

aries of its power. This

difference of opinion

highlights a disagree-

ment about how much

say the Security Coun-

cil should have on

decisions to authorize

the use of force.

What was the role of

the Security Council in

the two wars in Iraq?

The role of the

Security Council came

under scrutiny in 2003

when the permanent

members were divided over the question of

authorizing military action against Iraq. This

was not the first time the Security Council had

addressed conflict in Iraq. Thirteen years ear-

lier, the Security Council met under differentcircumstances to debate taking military action

against Iraq.

In the 1991 Iraq War,

the Security Council, led

by the United States (who

was joined by its former

foe, the Soviet Union),

authorized an intervention

that succeeded in ending

an act of aggression by Iraq

against Kuwait.Under the leadership

of Saddam Hussein, a

repressive dictator, Iraqi

forces invaded the neigh-

boring oil-rich kingdom

of Kuwait in 1990. U.S.

President George H. W.

Bush (1989-1993) put

together a military coalition of twenty-eight

nations under the UN banner to end the Iraqi

occupation of Kuwait. As part of the ceasefire

agreement, UN monitors conducted regular

inspections of Iraq to prevent the production

of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,

and destroyed any

stockpiles of chemical

or biological weapons

that they found.

Many believed

that this military

intervention, made

shortly after the end of

the Cold War, was the

beginning of an era of

international coop-

eration and increased

importance for the

UN.

Thirteen years

later, Iraq and the UN

were in the headlines

again, but this time

the Security Council could not agree.

The United States and Britain argued that

the weapons inspections were not working in

Iraq. They contended that Iraq had weaponsof mass destruction (WMDs), and that twelve

“In order to ensure promptand effective action by the

United Nations, its Membersconfer on the Security Councilprimary responsibility for themaintenance of internationalpeace and security, and agree

that in carrying out its dutiesunder this responsibility theSecurity Council acts on their

behalf.” —UN Charter, Article 24:1

A UN inspector in 1992 uses a chemical air monitor to help confirm whetherIraq was complying with orders to destroy its chemical weapons program.

U N P h o t o # 7 6 1 8 0 .





years of UN sanctions had

failed to persuade Hussein

to comply with the 1991

ceasefire agreement. U.S.

President George W. Bush

(2001-2009) and British

Prime Minister Tony Blair

advocated military action

to remove the WMDs, and

topple the government of

Saddam Hussein.

The five permanent

members of the council

disagreed on whether to

continue the weapons

inspections or take military

action. France and Rus-

sia threatened to veto any

Security Council resolu-

tion that called for military

action against Iraq.

In March 2003, the United States invaded

Iraq, arguing incorrectly that Iraq possessed

WMDs. The U.S. decision to go to war without

Security Council authorization raised ques-

tions about the commitment of the United

States to the UN and the rule of law.

Three weeks after the U.S.-led groundoffensive began, the Iraqi government fell.

Months later, Saddam Hussein was captured.

An unsuccessful search for biological, nuclear,

and chemical weapons in Iraq began.

What are the current debates

about the Security Council?

The Security Council’s role in the two

Iraq wars raised questions about the author-

ity the UN has in decisions to go to war, and

about who leads this decision-making process.Within the U.S. public, some dislike the idea

of the UN Security Council claiming authority

over matters of war and peace. On the other

hand, some suggest that with a commitment

from its members, the Security Council can

work effectively against aggression as it did in

Iraq in 1991.

What is the U.S. government’s position

toward the Security Council?

Under President George W. Bush, the U.S.

government took military action without the

authorization of the Security Council. Presi-

dent Barack Obama, who assumed office in

2009, has stepped away from this approach.

He instead has emphasized international

cooperation and the importance of countries

working together to solve the world’s prob-lems.

This approach has led to some frustra-

tion both in the United States and abroad. For

example, U.S. efforts have failed to push the

Security Council to authorize action to stop

the use of force by the Syrian government

against its own people. Russia and China have

refused to consider a council resolution. As of

January 2014, this civil war had killed more

than 100,000 Syrians and forced 8.5 million

from their homes.

“ We live in a world of imperfect

choices. Different nations will not

agree on the need for action in

every instance, and the principle of

sovereignty is at the center of our

international order. But sovereignty

cannot be a shield for tyrants to

commit wanton murder, or an excuse

In this photo from 2006, an Iraqi family waits outside while a U.S. soldier

searches their home.

J e r e m y W o o d .

U . S .

N a v y .







Others contest this, arguing that U.S. leader-

ship in the UN would be diluted and that an

enlarged council would make reaching agree-

ment more difficult.

Other critics propose adding nonper-

manent seats for those geographic regions

currently underrepresented on the Security

Council. Proposals calling for additional non-

permanent seats often also ask for restrictions

to be placed on the veto power and express

interest in its eventual elimination.

“ [C]ontemporary world realities, in

particular the substantial increase in membership of developing countries

since 1963, requires an expansion

of the Security Council, in the

nonpermanent category, in order to

ensure fairer opportunities for all

Member States.”

—A draft resolution put forth by Argentina,Canada, Colombia, Korea, Mexico, Spain,

Turkey, and other states, July 21, 2005

PeacekeepingUN peacekeeping forces are primarily

military forces of UN members who have been

assigned to work with the UN. Peacekeeping

forces have a range of duties that can include:

monitoring a border, making a ceasefire hold,

and protecting civilians.

The UN deployed the first peacekeepers to

secure peace in 1956 during the Suez Crisis.

The Suez Crisis was a conflict that began when

Israel, supported by France and Great Britain,

invaded Egypt. At that time, the international

community was primarily concerned with

preventing war between countries. Today, civil

war and other types of local conflict take far

more lives than do wars between countries.

What is the difference between

peacekeeping and “peace enforcement”?

Early peacekeepers were unarmed and

were impartial in conflicts. Due to the chang-

ing nature of conflict, peacekeepers today

are usually well armed. The challenges they

face are often complex civil conflicts, com-

monly involving governments waging war

UN peacekeepers fulfill a range of duties, from monitoring elections to using troops to enforce borders. U n i t e d N a t i o n s p h o t o l i b r a r y .

“All Members of the UnitedNations, in order to

contribute to the maintenanceof international peace and

security, undertake to makeavailable to the SecurityCouncil, on its call and in

accordance with a specialagreement or agreements,

armed forces, assistance andfacilities, including rightsof passage, necessary for

the purpose of maintaininginternational peace and

security.” —UN Charter, Article 43:1





on their own people, rather than conven-

tional wars between states. Peacekeeping

missions frequently involve military en-

gagement, sometimes referred to as “peace

enforcement,” that places these soldiers on

a particular side of the conflict. In addition,

peacekeeping troops fulfill an increasingly

wide range of nonmilitary tasks. Since the

UN does not have a standing army of its own,

the Department of Peacekeeping Operations

(DPKO) relies entirely on member states to

contribute troops and resources for its opera-

tions.

Why is there a debate about peacekeeping?

The debate surrounding peacekeepers

is fueled by the history of previous peace-

keeping operations. One of the most terrible

events of the twentieth century sparked calls

for change. For one hundred consecutive

days in 1994, thousands of Rwandan men,

women and children were killed by machine

gun fire, machetes, and hand grenades. Within

four months, nearly one million people were

murdered simply because of their ethnic

origin. Escalating tensions between Rwanda’s

Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups overwhelmed

the UN’s tiny peacekeeping force.

In the wake of the UN’s failure to prevent

genocide in Rwanda and other tragedies of

the twentieth century, some member states

proposed the creation of a standby UN mili-

tary force. (Currently, member states volunteer

troops only when peacekeeping and security

needs arise.) This idea has sparked intense de-

bate. Some states are unwilling to give control

of their troops to the international organiza-

tion. Other objections include the financial

cost of maintaining a standing UN force.

Two peacekeeping operations, one in theformer Yugoslavian republic of Bosnia and the

other in the Asia-Pacific island of Timor-Leste

illustrate the debates about peacekeeping mis-

sions.

■ Bosnia

The former state of Yugoslavia slowly

began to disintegrate after the death of its

longtime leader, Marshal Tito in 1980. The

republics that had been united under the state

of Yugoslavia came apart. Several, including

Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Macedonia,

sought independence. Nationalists in many of

the republics exploited this chaos. An extrem-

ist, Slobodan Milosevic, rose to power in the

republic of Serbia. His nationalist message

reached ethnic Serbs across the former Yugo-

slavia.

In the early 1990s, ethnic Serbs in Bosniagrew nervous when they heard rumblings of

aspirations for an independent Bosnian state.

While Bosnia’s Muslims and Croats supported

the creation of an independent state, Bosnian

Serbs feared they would be subject to persecu-

tion. The conflict in Bosnia quickly erupted

into violence. Supported by armies from

neighboring republics, all sides were guilty

of atrocities. But Serb forces were responsible

for most of the brutality against civilians. The

Serbs sought to expel or kill Muslims and Cro-ats from the region by targeting civilians. This

process of “ethnic cleansing” utilized torture,

gang rape, concentration camps, and massacre.

How did UN peacekeepers

try to end the violence?

Because neither Europe or the North At-

lantic Treaty Organization (NATO) wished to

be involved, the UN sent a peacekeeping force

BOSNIA-

HERZEGOVINA

MONTENEGRO

CROATIA

SERBIA

ITALY

A d r i a t i c S e a

ALBANIA

MACEDONIA

ROMANIA

HUNGARY

B U L G A R I A

SLOVENIA

KOSOVO

The republics of the Yugoslav Federation, 1991.





to Bosnia. (NATO is a political and military

alliance of countries from Europe and North

America.) The mission mandated peacekeep-

ers to enforce trade sanctions and a no-fly

zone against Serbia, but gave the peacekeep-

ers no authority for military action. In 1993,

the UN Security Council designated several

“safe areas” throughout Bosnia, where dis-

placed Muslims and Croats could takerefuge and have the protection of a small

peacekeeping mission. In the midst of

a war zone, peacekeepers were still not

given authority to take military action to

protect civilians. Neither were the 35,000

extra troops the UN secretary-general

requested from member states for the

peacekeeping in the region.

In July 1995, Serb forces invaded

one safe area in the city of Srebrenica.

As fighting worsened, Serb forces tookthirty peacekeepers hostage. The com-

mander of the peacekeeping forces filed

a request with the UN for air support

from NATO to suppress Serbian attacks.

No air support came. Peacekeepers later

learned from UN headquarters that the

support had not come because the re-

quest had been filed on the wrong form.

The request was resubmitted correctly,

and NATO planes then

targeted Serbian bases with

two airstrikes. The delay

highlighted the difficulties

of sending a peacekeep-

ing force into a full-scale

war without a mandate for

military action.

Serb forces responded

to the air strikes by threat-

ening to kill the hostages

they had taken. As the

situation worsened and

no additional support

came for peacekeepers

to defend their position,

the peacekeeping mission

left Srebrenica altogether.

Meanwhile Serb forces lay

siege to the city, deported

more than twenty thou-

sand women and children, and killed some

eight thousand males between the ages of

twelve and seventy-seven.

What was the effect of NATO intervention?

Serbian massacres of Bosnian Muslim

villagers and artillery attacks against the city

Sarajevo

Dayton agreement line

Muslim-Croat sector

Serb sector

BOSNIA and

HERZEGOVINA

V

CROATIA

SERBIAand

MONTENEGRO

Belgrade

ITALY

A d r i a t i c S e a

GREECE

MACEDONIA

ROMANIA

HUNGARY

B U L G A R I A

Zagreb

SLOVENIA

Kosovo

This map shows the peace agreement that was reached in1995, dividing Bosnia into two republics—one for Muslimsand Croats, and one for Serbs.

U N P h o t o # 9 0 7 / J o h n I s a a c .

In this photo from May 1994, UN soldiers monitor the movement of Bosniansat a UN checkpoint.







would allow them to

achieve independence.

Indonesia’s President

Suharto had other plans

for Timor-Leste. In De-

cember 1975, he orderedhis army to invade the

island. Indonesian forces

massacred thousands of

unarmed civilians. In the

months and years that

followed, air attacks de-

stroyed entire villages.

Indonesia’s actions

met with little opposition

from the international

community. The UN Gen-eral Assembly passed a

resolution condemning the

invasion. But because In-

donesia was a key trading

partner of many powerful

countries, a number of

member states—including the United States,

Britain, Germany, France, and Australia—ab-

stained from voting, while Japan opposed the

resolution. The UN Security Council passed a

resolution calling on “all states to respect the

territorial integrity of Timor-Leste.”

Suharto ignored the UN resolutions and

tightened Indonesia’s occupation of Timor-

Leste. But the people of Timor-Leste did not

give up their struggle. In 1998, a severe eco-

nomic downturn forced Suharto to resign,

which suddenly opened up new opportunities

for change. Suharto’s successor, B.J. Habibie,

promised to transform Indonesia into a de-

mocracy. As part of his reform program, he

declared his support for a plan to allow the

Timorese people to decide their own politicalfuture.

How did UN peacekeepers aid Timor-

Leste’s transition to independence?

In 1999, the UN deployed a mission to as-

sist Timor-Leste’s transition to independence.

Despite Habibie’s promises, violence erupted,

apparently with the backing of Indonesia’s

military. The Indonesian military forcibly

transported one quarter of the population

across the border out of Timor-Leste. The UN

authorized a military peace enforcement inter-vention, led by Australia, to stop the violence.

Soon after, Indonesia pulled out of the region.

After Indonesia’s retreat, UN peacekeepers

resumed efforts to establish law and order and

distribute humanitarian aid. The UN gave the

peacekeepers the task of creating a government

for Timor-Leste from scratch. It was the first

time in history that the UN stepped in to play

the role of government and build a state from

the bottom up.

In May 2002, the UN transferred full sover-eignty to Timor-Leste. By 2003, most refugees

had returned to their homes. But violence in

2006 and the near-assassination of the coun-

try’s president in 2007 highlighted the fragility

of the peace. UN peacekeepers remained in

the country until December 31, 2012 to ensure

security, enforce the law, and train police and

civil servants. Today, the political situation re-

mains stable, and the economy shows growth,

U N P h o t o / E s k i n d e r D e b e b e .

Students in Timor-Leste on the first day of school in 2000. The schoolbuilding was burned during the violence after the 1999 vote to make Timor-Leste independent. UN peacekeepers built desks and chairs for students inthis school and later repaired the roof.







Many look to the list of failed peace-

keeping missions as an indication that

peacekeeping requires more attention and

resources. Peacekeeping is consistently under-

funded. In addition, the system of enlisting

national armies for all UN missions is identi-

fied as a root problem. Member states are not

always eager to contribute troops to end con-

flicts in which they are not involved.

One proposal to fix the problem—the

creation of a standby military force—is highly

controversial. Supporters argue that the pro-

posal would allow the UN to respond to crises

more quickly and effectively. Critics worry

that an independent standing UN force could

make it more likely that the UN would use

military action to deal with conflicts. Many are

concerned that this could lead to violations of

state sovereignty.

What is the Peacebuilding Commission?

In September 2005, the UN agreed to form

a Peacebuilding Commission. UN members

agreed to devote resources to identify states

in danger of collapse, to provide assistance to

prevent state collapse and conflict, and to help

rebuild states after there has been a conflict.

In addition, remembering the tragedies in

Rwanda and Srebrenica, states agreed that they

were prepared to take prompt collective action

through the UN Security Council to prevent

genocide and other crimes against humanity.

What is the U.S. position on

UN peacekeeping? The United States has been active in

leading enforcement operations and has

also played a critical role in operations led

by regional organizations like NATO. The

United States often provides transportation for

peacekeeping operations to reach their desti-

nation, but does not contribute a significant

number of troops to peacekeeping operations

for several reasons. The UN directly controls

peacekeeping operations and the United States

traditionally has avoided giving command of

its soldiers to the UN or any non-U.S. leaders.

Many in the United States oppose the idea of

creating a standby UN military force because

they fear giving too much power to the UN.

Human RightsThe denial of human rights is a leading

cause of violent conflict. Among the UN’s

greatest achievements have been its successes

at defining international human rights stan-

dards.Led by Eleanor Roos-

evelt, the UN developed

the Universal Declaration

of Human Rights in 1948.

This document and two

later treaties—the Interna-

tional Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights and

the International Covenant

on Economic, Social, and

Cultural Rights—make up

the foundation for current

international human rights

standards. Together these

documents are known as

the International Bill of

Human Rights.

The International

Bill of Human Rights

broke new ground. Never

before had the worldEleanor Roosevelt displays a poster of the Declaration of Human Rights.

U n i t e d N a t i o n s p h o t o l i b r a r y .

R e p r i n t e d w i t h

p e r m i s s i o n .









1956, Sudan has been embroiled in civil war.

Different ethnic groups have fought for con-

trol of the government and access to natural

resources.

Decades of conflict between the Arab,

Muslim elite in the north and other groups inthe south culminated in the separation of the

country into Sudan and South Sudan in 2011.

Issues between Sudan and the newly-

independent South Sudan continue to this

day, but the United Nations remains focused

on another conflict in the region, the ongoing

violence and displacement in Darfur, a region

in western Sudan.

In 2003, tensions over land and grazing

rights in Darfur, Sudan escalated between eth-

nic groups. Non-Arab groups, who are mainlyfarmers, claimed that the central government

gave special privileges to the Arab population

of nomadic herders. This was not a new griev-

members of the Human Rights Council and the

Commission on Human Rights ceased to ex-

ist. It was an important reform of the way the

UN dealt with human rights issues. The new

Human Rights Council is accountable to the

General Assembly and meets for nearly twice

as long each year.

Still, the UN continues to struggle to de-

fine its role in addressing human rights. The

case of Darfur, Sudan highlights the difficult

balance the UN must strike between the inter-

ests of its member states and its mandate to

effectively protect the human rights of people

around the world.

■ Humanitarian Crisis in Darfur, Sudan

Sudan is the third largest country inAfrica, and is made up of hundreds of diverse

ethnic, religious, and linguistic communities.

Since it gained independence from Britain in

Sudan

Egypt

South Sudan

Ethiopia

Eritrea

Somalia

Chad

Libya

Central African

Republic

! "

# $ % #

Yemen

Saudi Arabia







with Darfur’s opposition groups and with

the Sudanese government to help negotiate

a peace settlement. In addition, UN workers

have conducted a series of community meet-

ings to incorporate people from Darfur into the

ongoing discussion about rebuilding efforts

and urban planning.

“ [E]fforts to further stabilise Darfur

and initiatives to promote early

recovery and development of Darfur

are ongoing. We strongly believe

that giving the people of Darfur the

security to return to their homes and

opportunities to build livelihoods

is the best guarantee of enduring

peace….”

—Joint Special Representative IbrahimGambari of UNAMID, September 14, 2011

Reintegrating the 1.8 million IDPs back

into their communities in Darfur is a top prior-

ity for the UN High Commission of Refugees.

The UN provides “return packages” for IDPs—

which may include kitchen items, blankets,

soap, and other nonperishable materials.

Through partnerships with the World Food

Programme, IDPs also receive food vouchers

for use in local markets.

What has been the U.S. role in Darfur?

The United States is a main financial

backer of UNAMID. In the 2012 fiscal year, theUnited States government spent close to $200

million on humanitarian aid and peacekeeping

operations in Darfur. While President Obama

has given diplomatic priority to resolving the

ongoing conflict between Sudan and South

Sudan, his administration pushes for peaceful,

nonmilitary interventions to stop the fighting

in Darfur.

“ We are...deeply concerned about the

situation in Darfur where continuingviolence has displaced an estimated

320,000 people this year alone. We

call on all parties in these conflicts

to ensure the safety of the civilian

population and allow unhindered

humanitarian access.”

—U.S. Department of State,September 27, 2013

Sudan’s Boy Scout and Girl Guide association marches in a UNAMID parade on September 23, 2013, theInternational Day of Peace. The banner reads, “We Need Peace Now.”

U N P h o t o / A l b e r t G o n z a l e z F a r r a n ,

P h o t o # 5 6 2 0 0 6 .






The case studies you have read highlight some of the debates

surrounding the UN. In the coming days, you will consider

a range of options for U.S. policy on these issues. Each of the

three options that you will explore is based in a distinct set of

values or beliefs. Each takes a different perspective on the U.S.

role in the world and its relationship with the UN. You should

use the options to help understand the contrasting strategies fromwhich people in the United States must craft future policy.

Ultimately, you will be asked to make your own choices

about where U.S. policy should be heading. In doing so, you

may borrow heavily from one option, combine ideas from

several, or take a new approach altogether. You will need to

weigh the risks and trade-offs of whatever you decide.

critically affect its ability to carry out humani-

tarian operations in Darfur.

Other challenges in Darfur relate to the

relationships between the UN and other inter-

national organizations involved in the region.

In March 2005, the UN Security Councilpassed a resolution allowing the International

Criminal Court (ICC) jurisdiction over the

criminals responsible for human rights abuses

in Darfur. Four states—the United States, Bra-

zil, Algeria, and China—abstained from voting.

The resolution was the first time the Security

Council referred a case to the ICC.

Nevertheless, Sudan’s government has

rejected the ICC’s involvement and has thus far

been unwilling to surrender any of its citizens

to the court. The ICC issued two arrest war-rants for Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir,

as well as warrants for a high-ranking govern-

ment official and a pro-government militia

leader. (Three rebel leaders were also charged;

they have already appeared before the court.)

The inability of the ICC to try President

Bashir—and the unwillingness of several

African member states to comply with his ar-rest—has led to disagreement on how to best

achieve justice for the atrocities committed in

Darfur. The ICC has asked the Security Council

to help enforce the decisions of the court.

“ The [Security] Council’s silence, even

when notified of failures by States to

comply with their obligations, only

added insult to Darfur’s victims.”

—ICC Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda,

December 11, 2013

Date post:	18-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bryan-baik
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

UN - Challenges and Change (2015)

Documents