The UN has served its purpose as a world wide representation for the individual nations but it lacks any form of realism (the idea of strengthening military and security before anything else) in its function.
The UN has never served military purpose as the great powers in the UN are rarely able to agree upon the use of military strategy like when France refused to support the US invasion of Iraq. The UN's main purpose is to regulate international trade and representation based upon the decisions of the nations thus making them a liberal body. Refferring back to the UN militarily, the UN peace corps has always failed to prevent violence in Rwanda and Bosnia. In Bosnia's case, the civil war ended with NATO, a global military alliance aimed at protecting its members, commencing bombing raids on strategic Serbian military outposts. NATO saved Bosnia from disrupting into more chaos but the UN failed to protect the people particularly those massacred at Sarajevo.
The decisions of the UN also pose more liberal attributes like how they supply aid to impoverished countries and disaster zones like Indonesia after the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake. They can vote to impose economic sanctions on any country deemed as a threat to others like Iran and North Korea. However, if there was to be war, the ones most likely to protect the people are NATO and the other alliance groups. Overall, the UN directive is simple: they're keepers of the peace not soldiers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"The UN has never served military purpose". I disagree, outside of peacekeeping missions throughout Africa and the Balkans, the Korean War was a pretty massive UN military operation. The preservation of the South Korean state was at stake, and ensuring South Korean territorial integrity I find a very realist ideal.
Post a Comment