'The Un and Peacekeeping\r'

'CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION Since its outset in 1945, the joined lands has been involved in stay property doings and engagement roots in the world-wide system.\r\nAccording to Article 1 of the take aim of the unite Nations, the UN is expected â€Å"to leave potent incorporated measures for the resistion and removal of threats to the calm, and for the suppression of acts of hostility or separate breaches of the ataraxis, and to kick in about by legal gist, and in conformity with the pattern of umpire and world-wideist law, adjustment or result of international disputes or situations which might shoot to a breach of the peaceableness. The united Nations has been charged with vast responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and protective covering. Two organs were drawd for this purpose: the warrantor Council (which consists of fifteen fr natural treats, tailfin permanent members with controvert military unit and ten non pe rmanent members) and the command fabrication (which consist of repre displaceatives from all member states). This essay seeks to examine and analyze the maven-valued function of the unify Nations in the maintenance of international peace and certificate utilize the Korean war as a guinea pig study. THE UN AND PEACEKEEPING\r\nPeacekeeping is defined by the get together Nations as â€Å"a anomalous and dynamic instrument developed by the arrangement as a focus to help countries torn by conflict, create the conditions for lasting peace. The gage Council of get together Nations has been minded(p) the duty to take joint action to maintain international peace and aegis. The â€Å" spousal relationship for Peace” fortitude adopted by the superior general Assembly in 1954 imposes the responsibility of maintenance of international peace and security on the prevalent Assembly chthonian trustworthy conditions.\r\nThe joined Nations, after the laudation by the Sec urity Council get bys peacekeepers to regions where armed conflict has recently ceased or pa apply to enforce the term of peace agreements and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the joined Nations does non maintain its own military, peacekeeping operation operation forces argon voluntarily provided by member states of the unify Nations. The fo unders of the coupled Nations envisaged that the organization would help to pr pull downt conflicts between states and in the process, prevent bam of an some former(a)wise major war in the future.\r\nThe United Nations would get fit in of been commensurate to extend to this roaringly if non for the outbreak of the frigidness state of war. The outbreak of the cold war steel it extremely difficult for the United Nations to successfully resolve themes and conflicts because of the breakdown of the world into foreign camps. The United States and Hesperian Europe on star side and the Soviet Union, e ast Europe and part of Asia on the other side. This caused a stalemate in closing do in the Security Council as twain advocators (United States and Soviet Union) used their proscribe power to check each other.\r\nThe United Nations found it extremely difficult to follow to a dissolvent on issues where both super powers had national interests. In such exemplar as the Korean contend where after the Soviet Union used her veto power to reject resolutions and left(p) the Security Council completely paralyzed, the General Assembly through the â€Å"Uniting for Peace” resolution assumed the responsibility of make conclusivenesss. In evoke of the various obstacles the United Nations approach during the Cold state of war era in conflict resolution, it was however to an extent successful in maintaining international peace and security and close to importantly, the outbreak of another knowledge base War.\r\nTHE UNITED NATIONS AND THE KOREAN WARThe Korean War from 1950 to 1953 was the most severe test the United Nations had to face since its inception in 1945. As part of the Cold War scenario, the Korean War was a complicated issue with which the United Nations had to successfully deal with or lose credibility just five age after it had come into being. The Korean experience tested the United Nations superpower and credibility in maintaining international peace and security. In some ways the Korean episode could be regarded as the United Nations finest hour.\r\n present for the basic and save conviction in its history, the Security Council called on its members to go to the defense of a state under armed outpouring1. It also marked the first attempt by an international organization to check an act of aggression, and it stands as the only occasion on which enforcement action had been taken against aggressor states or other authorities2. Here in consequences the forces of a number of countries fought under the United Nations flag to stage the principle that aggression should not be allowed to succeed3. barely the concept of collective security was not upheld as only a canton of the membership of he United Nations sent military assistance to conspiracy Korea and the 16 states which did so were all Western countries. This was an instance of alliance strategy than of enforcement action by an international organization; of collective defending team rather than collective security. The accompaniment that a great majority of the United Nation membership though pro- western were slow to send significant armed project to the country whose existence was threatened showed that the action would scarcely be said in all heartedly to fulfill the ideals enshrined in the Charter of the UN4.\r\nThe bureau exercised by the United States over the finished operation in the Korean crisis deprive it of the name of the genuine collective security. This was demo in the early stages by the fact that most of the Security Council initiatives and resolutions were really in origin United States marriage proposals. At the blast of North Korea attack on South Korea, the United States was the first state to send assistance both financially and militarily to South Korea even before the United Nations had taken a decision on the matter.\r\nThe military operation was headed by a United States commander and decision that were taken originated directly from the White House and not from the UN secretariat. This defeated the purpose of collective security by placing the responsibility of a peacekeeping mission in the hands of a super power. This contrasted radically with the subsequent radiation pattern of the UN in organizing peace-keeping forces from 1956 onward. In these cases the super power were normally excluded from participation altogether. And no single power or even a group of powers was able to dominate insurance policy in the way the United States was allowed to do in Korea5.\r\nThis gave a clear inter pretation that the UN was dominated by the United States. intimately 90% of all army personnel, 93% of all air power and 80% of all naval power for the Korean War had come from the United States. The Chinese got involved in the war (this escalated and lengthened the war) on the basis that they viewed the square operation not as an United Nations peacekeeping mission but an effort by the United States to gain control of Asia using the United Nation as a cover to invade both Koreas and China.\r\nThe decision of the United Nations Forces to cross the 38th gibe also originated from the United States. The United States brought the proposal for the United Nations forces to cross the 38th double and enter North Korea before the General Assembly even though most of the participating states were against it. Even though in that location were other states that participated in the peace keeping operations, their opinion were barely considered by the United States. Major of the decision mak ing processes was held in Washington rather than New York.\r\n trance the success of the United Nations in filthy aggression in Korea had been in big part due to the contribution of the United States, the dominant role of the United States attenuated the collective character of the operation6. Throughout the whole episode, the United Nations failed to institute or even attempt to institute any effective negotiations among the parties concerned as in the case of South Korea and North Korea and also the United States and the Soviet Union after the division of Korea.\r\nThe United Nations also failed before 1950 to bring the two parties (North and South Korea) into discussion to as to bring about a resolution or involve the use of a mediator or good index to help along with negotiations; instead the United Nations held on to its demands for all Korean †choice under the UN auspices. The Korean experience has shown that the Charter provision and machinery for which the Charter p rovides can be adapted and utilized under certain conditions to defeat aggression and to discourage aggression in advance7.\r\nSince the decline of the Cold War, the UN however, has been to a greater extent effective and efficient in maintaining international peace and security. The Korean experienced questioned the UN as a useful and promising means of dealing with threats to and breaches of the peace by collective measures and its limitations. The â€Å"Uniting for Peace” resolution which was passed by the General Assembly during the Korean War created a whole new dynamic.\r\nThe veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council sometimes cripples the Council as it make decision making harder and slower in cases where the super powers have different contrasting interest as could be seen in the Korea conflict where the Soviet Union used her veto power to cripple the resolution passed by the other members of the council. The â€Å"Uniting for Peace” resolutio n gave the General Assembly the power and responsibility to make decisions under such circumstances where the Security Council is crippled and in capable of making decisions concerning the security matters.\r\nThe Korean experience served as an important lesson for the UN in its pursuit of international peace and security. It has also shown that the purpose of collective security is to restore international peace and security and not do justice, particularly if the doing of justice, which often is highly controversial and in practice requires some accommodation of conflicting interests involves a serious risk of extending the war.\r\nmoreover there is the additional danger where one member has disproportionate share in the direction of the operation that the member leave behind seek to use the operation for execution of its own national policies, policies which may not be in harmony with the interests and policies of other members of the United Nations. The United Nations could j ustifiably hold that it had fought a successful war to defend a nation under attack what it could not claim, after eight years of discussion, was that it had brought any nearer a resolution of the Korean problem.\r\nCONCLUSION The Korean War served as an important lesson to UN. In spite of the various obstacles it has faced the United Nations had been able to improve and make amendment. Since the decline of the Cold War which was a major figure in the outcome of the Korean War has also strengthened the United Nations in the area of conflict resolution and peace keeping operation. ENDNOTES 1. Evan Luard, A History of the United Nations spate 1: The Years of Western command 1945-1955 (Macmillan 1982), p. 71-272. 2. D. W. Bowett, United Nations Forces. A effectual Study of United Nations Practice (London, Sterens and Sons, 1984), p. 30 3. Evan Luard, A History of the United Nations Volume 1: The Years of Western Domination 1945-1955 (Macmillan 1982), p. 272. 4. Ibid, p. 272-273. 5. Ibid, p. 273. 6. Leland M. Goodrich, â€Å"The United Nations and the Korean War: A Case Study”, Proceedings of the academy of Political Science, Vol. 25. No. 2. United Nations: mastery or Failure p. 103. 7. Ibid, p. 102.\r\n'