United Nuisance: The U.N.?s Inability to Handle Globalization

by LowLife

Globalization is the future. There is no way to avoid it. Technology has transformed the world into a smaller place, and now nations that used to be all the way across the Atlantic have become your next-door neighbor. This new world has to be viewed in an entirely modernistic fashion. One must recognize that the world is split into two distinct parts. The first part is the Modern World, which consists of nations that feature “stable governments” and “rising standards of living” (Barnett). The second part is the Third World, which almost exclusively features “politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generations of global terrorists” (Barnett). This plainly translates into a successful part of the world that embraces globalization and an unsuccessful part that shuns it.

According to Peter Sutherland, a former chairman of the Overseas Development Council, “globalization’s effects have been overwhelmingly good.” It has produced mass liberalization, expanded world trade and spurred a wave of productivity. Sutherland also states, “in the 1990s alone, foreign investors have poured $1 trillion into developing economies.” Poorer countries benefit from globalization because of the international investment that is involved. Roads get paved, factories get built, and economies are developed. The standard of living is also raised over time. However, while globalization helps those involved in it, the nations that are left behind suffer.

It is a naïve assumption to believe that reducing connectivity with these underdeveloped nations will “render [them] less dangerous to us over the long haul,” says Thomas P.M. Barnett of the U.S. Naval War College. “We cannot simply will those people away.” In order to bring these countries into the modern community, their oppressive regimes must be dismantled. Democracy and free-market capitalism must be introduced and enforced. More often than not, this ends up involving military force, because the regimes are not eager to surrender their previously unlimited power. And when this force must be used, we turn to one organization—the United Nations. But a question is posed: how good of a job does the U.N. do in aiding countries-in-need? Does it successfully defeat tyranny and liberate oppressed people?

If you examined the U.N.’s record during the 1990s you would find that it was not very good. In fact, it was downright horrible. The Rwanda conflict in 1994 is a prime example. The Rwanda wars actually began in 1956 between the Hutus and the Tutsis. The conflict escalated and after many years the U.N. finally decided to send a peacekeeping force in the fall of 1993. The peacekeeping forces were restricted, however, to maintain a “moral equivalency” as Carol Off, a journalist, put it. Both sides of the conflict had to be regarded as equal politically and morally. It didn’t matter that the Hutus were designing an elaborate plan of genocide against the Tutsis.

What makes this conflict such a failure for the U.N., was that it ignored the warnings of the coming atrocities. A whole three months before the act occurred, Gen. Romeo D’Allaire notified the U.N. headquarters about the Hutu planning, but was ignored (Newman). Even worse, as the killing began, the U.N. withdrew its troops because the headquarters “did not believe there was support among the members for more involvement” (Newman). Over one million people died in four months. “The daily death rate was five times that of the Nazi industrial death camps” (McKinney).

It doesn’t end there. Another example is the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian conflict. The Security Council had established a number of safe areas for refugees and promised to supply troops to guard them. One common complaint was that the U.N. refused to authorize enough troops required to do the job. Only 7,400 of the requested 34,000 U.N. troops ever reached the Bosnian Theater. At the Srebrenica camp, only 110 Dutch peacekeepers were stationed as security. In 1995, Serb forces surrounded the camp with the intention of slaughtering the refugees. The Dutch commander had requested NATO air support on four or five occasions, but was turned down by the U.N. headquarters (Crossette). The U.N. leadership had become paralyzed due to member disagreements on the issue and refused to send in reinforcements. The Dutch troops fled the area, fearing that they would be taken hostage and as a result, between 5,000-8,000 Muslim refugees were massacred (McKinney).

The list of U.N. failures to successfully deploy peacekeeping forces and to provide humanitarian aid goes on and on. Countries like East Timor, Angola and Bolivia were all U.N. disasters. A glance at the current situation in West Africa also shows that the U.N.-monitored areas of Sierra Leone and Liberia have not improved—and many would go so far as to say they’ve worsened. Even today, the U.N. proves itself irrelevant with a barrage of absurd actions. Libya, a nation “which specializes in abduction, assassination, torture and detention without trial,” (Krauthammer) has been recently voted as chairman of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, by a 33 to 3 vote. Iraq is also going to chair the U.N. Disarmament Conference, May 12-June 27 and Iran is the co-chair (Krauthammer). To anyone possessing any kind of common sense, these actions would be deemed ludicrous.

Even throughout the present Iraqi conflict, the U.N. has contradicted itself with the passing of Resolution 1441. Under this resolution, Iraq’s lack of cooperation in the disarmament process, reported by Hans Blix, would be considered a material breech. “It is a casus belli” (Krauthammer). But has any action been taken? No. Resolutions proposed by the American-led pro-war side have been turned down, as well as resolutions proposed by the French-led anti-war side. Nothing has been accomplished other than petty arguments and inaction. All the while, Saddam Hussein remains unpunished and the U.N. credibility is slowly diminishing.

There are two reasons for the horrible performance displayed by the U.N. The first is its insistence on the practice of moral equivalency. Nations that commit humanitarian crimes and deliberately defy the U.N., such as Iraq, cannot be considered the moral equivalent to a nation like the United States, who supplies more economic aid world-wide than any other country. The U.N. must wake up to the fact that certain nations have to be considered morally unacceptable, especially when they commit atrocities. The U.N. must also be prepared to use military force quickly and efficiently after negotiations have failed. Procrastination and inaction are what allow horrendous events to take place in Third World nations.

The second flaw of the U.N. is that its members all too often play power politics. Nations will attempt to further their own interests by practicing realpolitik rather than working for the good of the world. Many experts have speculated that the current Iraqi conflict is an example of power politics. It is apparent that action must be taken against Saddam for numerous reasons. Most importantly is that it will end Iraq’s isolation and introduce a new, free nation into the global community. With Iraq transformed, it’s predicted that the rest of the Middle East will follow. And if not, it is the duty of stronger nations to encourage this change. However, France appears to have its own agenda—possibly one trying to counterbalance the American superpower. Regardless of which side is correct, the point is that while these world powers are debating what to do, no action is being taken and the problem is not being solved. Power politics cannot be permitted to interfere with righting the wrongs of the world.

Sadly enough, in light of the U.N.’s current actions, it does not appear that any effort is being made to reform these flaws. If this is not amended, then the expansion of globalization is in jeopardy. This will not affect nations already involved in globalization as much as it will affect nations that are left out. These outcasts need to be steered into becoming members of the international community. The results of such actions will be for the benefit of all. If the U.N. cannot successfully lead this process, than what good is it? In the end, the United Nations is turning out to be just another League of Nations—irrelevant to world affairs and powerless to guide global advancement.

Sources

Barnett, Thomas P.M. “The Pentagon’s New Map.” Esquire. March 2003. Naval War College. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm>.

Crossette, Barbara. “U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop ’95 Bosnia Massacre.” New York Times. 16 Nov. 1999. Mount Holyoke College. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/unbos.htm>.

Krauthammer, Charles. “U.N., R.I.P.” Washington Post. 31 Jan. 2003. Washingtonpost.com. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/articles/A4011-2003Jan30.html>.

McKinney, Cynthia A. “McKinney – Annan And The UN Are Stained With Blood.” 16 Nov. 2001. Rense.com. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.rense.com/general24/stain.html>.

Newman, Kevin. “Broken Soldier.” ABCNews.com. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/Nightline/nl010207_genocide_feature. html>.

Sutherland, Peter. “Expand the Debate on Globalization.” TIME. 2 Feb. 1998. Time.com. 27 Feb. 2003 <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980202/special_report.expand_th 25.html>.