Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has been increasingly
involved in complex peace operations raging from pre-conflict stability
operations, through the low-intensity combat to post-conflict reconstruction. These
operations have met with mixed success. Is there a realistic alternative to the
United Nations for such situations? Why or why not?
In Rwanda, close to
a million civilians were slaughtered. A year later, in Bosnia, thousand civilians were executed. In
Congo, rebels killed one hundred and fifty civilians near where the
United Nations troops were stationed. It is reasonable for people to think that
the United Nations is an ineffective and irrelevant organization.
Why was the United Nations failing in peacekeeping operations? Why it was not perceived
doing better? It can be inferred
that, perhaps the more important question is how can the international
community improve the United Nations as a legitimate international institution?
Any suggestion may beg many other issues, in part because the United Nations
owes its origin and inspiration to the system of sovereign states. However, in
large measure, developing the United Nations into a more authoritative
institution is the only plausible choice to protect not only the human rights
of the people in desperate needs but also to secure peace all over the world
and future generations.
Strengthening the United Nations
with more authority and legitimacy must be worldwide commitments beyond
national interests to resolve the security dilemma in the face of severe
environmental pressure. Such commitments include consensus on the exercise of greater
political authority beyond individual sovereignty and the establishment of
peace enforcement units or of a United Nations standing army.
Fundamental challenges to these approaches
are the perception of American people to the United Nations. Some American people criticize the
United Nations for its role and function are uncertain so that the United
Nations wastes the American taxpayer’s money. However, it is
inconsistent with the evidence that because the United States is the nation that actually would not provide the
United Nations with enough troops to effectively conduct peacekeeping
operations. The United States currently holds about 700 million overdue
payments and supplies only 29 troops. Susan Rice, the United States ambassador
to the United Nations, also admitted that the number of complex challenges the
United Nations is trying to tackle are far greater than its capability. She
also stressed that there is a growing gap in supply and demand upon which the
number and quality of troops and missions are overstretched. It seems evident
that the United Nations is deeply in need of support from the United States and
renewed commitment from member states to leadership.
Therefore, it is a
false choice if we attempt either to create another institution or to close the
United Nations. The only answer to this divided world must be improved the
United Nations with stronger leadership and authority.
