Is the UN a liberal or realist organization?

Is the UN a liberal or realist organization?

I believe that the United Nations is a liberal organization. Liberal in this regard means that it is interested in advancing the self interests and institutions within the countries of the world as opposed to being a realist organization, which is military and security oriented. If you look at the UN’s total track record, I believe that it will show the United Nations is primarily a humanitarian organization.

The organization seems to have a lot of trouble getting things done militarily. The five primary veto wielding members of the security council, the US, France, England, China and Russia rarely agree to universally support military action. One of many examples of this lack of agreement is shown by the UN Security Council resolution for authorizing military action in Iraq. The resolution was brought by the US, UK and Spain. It was opposed by France, Russia and Germany. (http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html) The statement by France, Russia and Germany explicitly states that they will not let a resolution authorizing force pass.( http://www.un.int/france/documents_anglais/030305_mae_france_irak.htm) Another example comes from the conflict with Rwanda. Even though UN peacekeepers went in, that’s exactly what their job was: to be peace keepers, not an active military force. The UN Rwandan peacekeepers’ rules of engagement, as written in 1993, were not restrictive in what measures could be taken against the rebels. The author Hikaru Yamashita writes on page 141 of his book, Humanitarian Space and International Politics that the commander of the UN Rwandan forces said, “I will morally and legally require UNAIMR (the peacekeeping force in Rwanda) to use all available means to stop them (the rebels).” The author says that this was written directly into the forces Rules of Engagement by their commander. (http://books.google.com/books?id=D6WKJHr0Kf4C&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=UNAMIR+ROE&source=web&ots=8l32sn8YeB&sig=1fnfHaS1DNxqvALCZMDsuVn2oDU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result) But the peacekeeping force didn’t seem to carry out the rules of engagement, and many people died. Then the UN peacekeepers’ headquarters in Rwanda was hit in 1994. Even though this attack didn’t cause any casualties it was decided the force would be greatly reduced in numbers. Also, because of a UN mandate at this same time, the role of the force was changed to, “act as an intermediary between the parties in an attempt to secure their agreement to a ceasefire; assist in the resumption of humanitarian relief operations to the extent feasible; and monitor developments in Rwanda, including the safety and security of civilians who sought refuge with UNAMIR,” the UN peacekeepers’ group. (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/co_mission/unamirFT.htm#HISTORICAL) So, these two examples seem to illustrate that the UN is not very effective militarily at the governing level. So, following the realist providing-security theory, the UN doesn’t seem to be effective.

Although the UN may not be effective militarily, it is good at providing humanitarian aid, which would seem to fit the liberal definition of an organization that provides for the people. The UN almost always provides this type of humanitarian aid after a major disaster or military conflict. A perfect example can be seen in what happened after the massive tsunami hit Southeast Asia in 2006. The UN, very soon after the scope of the disaster was known, started to provide aid. By December 28, two days after the disaster, they were already providing aid to the area, such as clean drinking water. (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12922&Cr=&Cr1=) The reason they are much more of a liberal organization than a realist is that the UN is much better at providing humanitarian aid than military aid. So by providing humanitarian aid, they are advancing the interests of a country by helping the people and making sure the country doesn’t become completely unlivable after a disaster. This is consistent with liberal theory.