The United Nations goal is technically maintaining international peace and security. If they’re always afraid to do something when a country attacks another without provocation, out of fear of escalating the situation, why does it even exist?
In: 3
It’s a Pokémon Gym in Pokémon Go. That’s the only contribution to my life I think it’s made.
Well, because it’s difficult to prevent war. It’s sort of like: “If people still get murdered, why do we bother with a police force? They only get there after the person is dead!”
Hopefully, people will be aware of the consequences of their actions and that knowledge will act as a deterrent, but, ultimately, all of us have free will and the possibilty to do stupid things, and at the end of the day, you can’t regulate stupidity. You can curb it, a lot, but you can’t remove it, and history shows that the more you try to regulate it, the worse the explosion gets once the system falls.
The primary purpose of the UN is to give nations a means to resolve their disputes peacefully through what is essentially mediation. It also provides a mechanism for international action. Though in practice that only happens with the consent of the Security Counsel. Which are the most powerful nations of the world. And Russia.
The UN is not so much staying out Ukraine because of fear of escalation. Though that always has to be on the mind when nuclear weapons are concerned. It’s because Russia can veto any significant action.
Everyone here needs to recognize how close the Nazis were to developing their own nukes. Had it not been for the anti-Semitism, they’d have won ww2.
There’s a saying I read once that was supposed to be said around the time after the League of Nations was disbanded and the UN was created. I think it’s attributed to the first Secretary General.
“The UN wasn’t designed to help us ascend to heaven, it was created to keep us from descending into hell.”
It’s not a criticism but a realistic assessment of what it can and cannot do given the politics realities.
The inability of the UN to take decisive action is a result of the fact that alliances have changed and geopolitical interests have shifted since the end of World War II.
Originally, the UN was not necessarily meant to be a global forum for all nations the way it is now. It was a club for the victors of World War II, and only nations who contributed to the war effort against the Axis were allowed to join. At that time, the United States, Britain, France, China, and the Soviet Union were allies, and they form the five nations with a veto power vote, but that alliance was short lived after the war, and has not gotten better since. They almost never agree on anything and thus nothing gets done.
You see, there’s an institution within the United Nations called the security council, which is a 15-nation body that acts on all of the executive motions of the United Nations. The 5 nations I mentioned previously have veto power, so if for instance someone wants UN forces to intervene to stop an invasion, all it takes is one of those 5 to stop it.
There are examples in history of when the UN was able to be an effective force, the main one being the Korean War. At that time, the USSR was boycotting the UN, and the other four powers were able to agree that North Korea was the aggressor, so UN troops fought in the Korean War against the DPRK and are a huge reason as to why South Korea was able to survive that war.
All in all, the ineffectiveness of the UN is at its core a result of the fact that it’s most powerful members never agree on how to solve problems, so nothing gets done and the UN is powerless to stop global conflict. It’s use is as a global forum now, not a guarantor of peace like it was intended.
It is the world forum of diplomacy. In it, all countries may make statements to other countries. There are also mechanisms for celebration, sanctions, and sending aid workers to assist other nations.
The other purpose is to ensure *legal* military actions. The UN grants or denies military actions as legitimate or illegitimate, and allows other nations to vote on that legitimacy. For example, Russia didn’t seek a UN resolution against Ukraine: thus it is illegal warfare. The USA *did* receive UN approval to invade Iraq in 1991, but not in 2003 (thus making the action as questionable as Russia’s foray into Ukraine).
The same reason headlights on cars are important even though they won’t physically stop you from driving into a tree.
The other comments are correct.
Also, I think it’s worth mentioning that a global “police” does not exist so naturally even if some country proceeds with military action or commits war crimes there is nothing much you can physically do about it.
Economic sanctions are the best way to deal about this. Money makes the world go around. 🙂
Excellent question. International law, like all law, is only as binding as the executive of the law. Turns out that nobody wants to enforce international laws, because they are basically sandlot pinkie promises not to do anything extinction level bad.
Latest Answers