How will the emergence of regional organizations effect the UN?

[bombshoo]

First off, before we get into a discussion on this, my question is not should the European Union replace Britain and France on the Security Council. If this topic relevant to your point, feel free to consider it, but I've seen countless discussions on this and they never seem lead anywhere.

Now, for the actual meat of the question. Are regional organizations better at resolving conflicts than the UN? If they are not do you think they will be in the future? I realize the UN partners with a lot of organizations, such as with the EU on missions in the former Yugoslavia and with ECOWAS in Liberia and elsewhere, but do you think this current way of partnering is best or should the UN simply cede peacekeeping to these kind of organizations when possible?

Before we argue that the UN does not have a right to enforce peacekeeping missions, it is generally accepted that it does in chapter six and seven of the UN charter when it says (paraphrased) "the United Nations Security Council has the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain international peace and security." Though the term "peacekeeping" does not appear in the charter, I find I hard to argue that this part of charter has any value at all without the ability to perform peacekeeping missions.

So legally, the UN has the right for peacekeeping missions, and arguably, as we've seen in many cases, probably a moral obligation when there are no other potential responders as well. If we can agree on these points (though I'm certainly not forcing you too, and feel free to disagree if you have good points), I suppose this argument falls into a matter of practicality.

Does the UN have a place in peacekeeping missions today? Will they in the future? Should they only respond when no one else does? Does the ability of these organizations to likely engage in preventative peacekeeping and diplomacy mean the UN no longer has a purpose in this realm? Should they only step in if the preventative diplomacy performed locally fails and make no attempt to be part of that diplomacy?

If you have a question on the poll, feel free to ask.

 

[GoodGame]

That's a sharp question, but I think nationalism will preclude it until the other members of the EU take pointed offense (Have they? e.g. Does Germany have issues with not being the permament members of the UN Security council?).

I don't see regional organizations leading to an annulment of the strength of the UN, since historically the UN hasn't been very strong except when it had popular strength. I think if anything, the trend to organizations might become an interface for dealing with the UN more efficiently. Not sure, though.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Have they? e.g. Does Germany have issues with not being the permament members of the UN Security council?.

Yes. Considering that Germany is the biggest financial contributor after the US and Japan - why wouldn't it?

@OP
The UN even has the right to enforce peace, not to just keep peace. This is a mere fact. How that right and reality stand with each other is another question.

On the actual question: I am not certain what you are getting it. But in principal: Weakening of the UN, as this body is justified by the uncontrollable big number of interest groups. Local organizations decrease this.

Edit: Only now read the actual poll question. As peacekeeping is quit different from the enforcement of peace and gives as a concept credit to the shortcomings of the UN - I say absolutely yes. But only as far as the traditional peace keeping is concerned (Kosovo for instances did not belong to that group).

So I vote diplomatically, though in reality it is much more than that.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think if anything, the trend to organizations might become an interface for dealing with the UN more efficiently. Not sure, though.

Or it might be the opposite, if said regional organization isn't sympathetic. But still, regional organizations will have an easier time running actual peacekeeping missions not as hampered by considerations of sovereignty. Opposing the will of nearby nations is much harder than doing the same for faraway ones.

 

[bombshoo]

Yes. Considering that Germany is the biggest financial contributor after the US and Japan - why wouldn't it?

@OP
The UN even has the right to enforce peace, not to just keep peace. This is a mere fact. How that right and reality stand with each other is another question.

On the actual question: I am not certain what you are getting it. But in principal: Weakening of the UN, as this body is justified by the uncontrollable big number of interest groups. Local organizations decrease this.

Edit: Only now read the actual poll question. As peacekeeping is quit different from the enforcement of peace and gives as a concept credit to the shortcomings of the UN - I say absolutely yes. But only as far as the traditional peace keeping is concerned (Kosovo for instances did not belong to that group).

So I vote diplomatically, though in reality it is much more than that.

What do you consider traditional peacekeeping? First generation peacekeeping missions only?

 

[Ahovking]

the UN must not Fail like the League of Nations it needs to do diplomatically and peace enforcement.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

What do you consider traditional peacekeeping? First generation peacekeeping missions only?

The classical "Blue-helmet-mission" and the underlying principles. I can only talk out of my memory right know, but those principles include among other things that a peacekeeping missions only takes place when peace is actually an option to both parties. The UN and its forces take the place of a mediator, secure the border, watch over the cease fire and its conditions and focus on the civil aspects. Hence my differentiation from enforcement. All according to the slogan "If there is no peace to keep, their is no peacekeeping".
I will ask my brother to send me my documents, I'd like them anyways thinking of it. Then I should be able to summon an entire list of those principles.

The reason why I favor those types of missions only is that they actually managed to get done and do some good.

I am not aware of one single case where the UN tried to enforce peace and did not just mess things up. Not one single. Which is the reason the concept of the "blue-helmet missions" was created in the first place.
It simply lacks the power - in virtually every respect - to enforce peace. The military power, the financial power, the power by authority... nothing the UN has of those important ingredients. Of course in theory the members could give it to the UN. But that is not going to happen for many reasons.
The most important one: Nations are not altruistic.

 

[innonimatu]

Regional organizations are not better at resolving conflicts which require a neutral (approximately...) mediator. Regional organizations are more likely to have higher stakes in their own regional conflicts.

When that is not a consideration they should be more effective, because they should have a better understanding of the conflict.

It simply lacks the power - in virtually every respect - to enforce peace. The military power, the financial power, the power by authority... nothing the UN has of those important ingredients. Of course in theory the members could give it to the UN. But that is not going to happen for many reasons.
The most important one: Nations are not altruistic.

I believe that the UN was initially meant to have an army. But, of course, countries went on to object, and that part of the plan never happened. In any case it does not seem possible.

 

[bombshoo]

The classical "Blue-helmet-mission" and the underlying principles. I can only talk out of my memory right know, but those principles include among other things that a peacekeeping missions only takes place when peace is actually an option to both parties. The UN and its forces take the place of a mediator, secure the border, watch over the cease fire and its conditions and focus on the civil aspects. Hence my differentiation from enforcement. All according to the slogan "If there is no peace to keep, their is no peacekeeping".
I will ask my brother to send me my documents, I'd like them anyways thinking of it. Then I should be able to summon an entire list of those principles.

The reason why I favor those types of missions only is that they actually managed to get done and do some good.

I am not aware of one single case where the UN tried to enforce peace and did not just mess things up. Not one single. Which is the reason the concept of the "blue-helmet missions" was created in the first place.
It simply lacks the power - in virtually every respect - to enforce peace. The military power, the financial power, the power by authority... nothing the UN has of those important ingredients. Of course in theory the members could give it to the UN. But that is not going to happen for many reasons.
The most important one: Nations are not altruistic.

So I imagine you are highly critical of the UN mission in the DRC where the Peacekeepers have significantly more robust rules of engagement. What do you suggest in these scenarios besides diplomatic support? Should these sort of conflicts be handled by regional organizations (the African Union?) or left alone until a reasonable scenario for peace develops?

Regional organizations are not better at resolving conflicts which require a neutral (approximately...) mediator. Regional organizations are more likely to have higher stakes in their own regional conflicts.

When that is not a consideration they should be more effective, because they should have a better understanding of the conflict.

Though isn't there some benefits to having a stake in the conflict? It seems a country with a stake in the region has more reason to seek a swift solution to the problem. A regional organization could probably reach a consensus faster than the UN as well, where a resolution can sit in debate in the Security Council for months.

I am aware that there are certainly problems with regional organizations being trusted to handle peacekeeping, (the Syrian intervention in Lebanon in '76 comes to mind as it technically was under the Arab League) but there are certainly benefits to being an interested party in the conflict. Maybe only regional organizations that have reached a certain level of integration (a much higher level than the Arab League in the 70s) can be trusted to handle peacekeeping?

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

They need to redo the charter. The permanent member States have too much power of the veto, and a lot have changed since the post-war. It need to actually represent full democracy with all members having the same veto rights.

 

[Tee Kay]

They need to redo the charter. The permanent member States have too much power of the veto, and a lot have changed since the post-war. It need to actually represent full democracy with all members having the same veto rights.

You're not seriously giving Muslims and Africans the same voting rights as civilized people!?!?!??!

[/sarcasm]

 

[JohnRM]

The United Nations' role in international affairs will continue to strengthen provided that globalisation continues and the world continues to shrink. This is not guaranteed, especially with a looming energy crisis in our future. All bets are off in the event of a global economic depression.

 

[bombshoo]

They need to redo the charter. The permanent member States have too much power of the veto, and a lot have changed since the post-war. It need to actually represent full democracy with all members having the same veto rights.

I'm not sure what you mean here? All democracies have the power to veto? All democracies on the SC have the power to veto? The SC should be enlarged and give new members veto power? The non-permanent SC members should be able to veto?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

So I imagine you are highly critical of the UN mission in the DRC where the Peacekeepers have significantly more robust rules of engagement. What do you suggest in these scenarios besides diplomatic support? Should these sort of conflicts be handled by regional organizations (the African Union?) or left alone until a reasonable scenario for peace develops?

In deed I am.
The UN Mission supporting the Congolese forces has not managed to defeate the Rwandan militia which continues to reign in terror over Eastern Congo. Again the inability of the UN to enforce peace shows. But not only that, along the way they incorporated the CNDP-troops which shares its own account of terror and mass murder.

But all that is neglectable in face of the biggest sign of failure of the UN: France harbors leaders of said militia, in the UK companies are active which buy resources from the militia, the US hosts bank accounts of the militia, Russia and China are known to buy resources form the militia as well.
In short: The permanent members of the security council are supporting a murdering and terrorizing militia the UN fights at the same time. Is there any more to say to the inability of the UN to enforce peace? It simply has no ground to stand on.

If you ask me for a suggestion; I'd like to respond with that any great suggestion has little point to it as long as the foundation of every possible solution is not established: A serious dedication of the world community to peace even if it goes against their interests.

For this to happen I only see one way reliable way: The people of our democracies would have to step up and demand a more active and selfless engagement in the world by their governments. Saying said governments would need to gain popularity by doing so. But I can't imagine this to happen.

Another possibility is to reform the UN in order that it gains way more independence - say by a mandatory amount of money a particular nations has to pay and then to create structures which enable the UN to directly and critical and publicly analyze where and how peace can be achieved and how nations could help this or actually harm this. Meaning the UN would need to arise to a solid and stand-alone political entity in order to replace the national lack of altruism. Some basic approaches have already been established in that regard. This needs to be intensified.
But it just seems surreal that the world community would push for an entity which sole purpose it is to give them a hard time.

I believe that the UN was initially meant to have an army. But, of course, countries went on to object, and that part of the plan never happened. In any case it does not seem possible.

I have no hard time to believe that.
The initial idea of the UN was much more ambiguous than the actual execution.

 

[warpus]

Regional oragnizations such as the EU will only strenghten the UN's role in peacekeeping operations, as the UN WANTS to work with regional organizations to solve problems - it makes peacekeeping easier, so they will take on a larger role... while sure, sometimes relying on regional organizations and standalone countries to do the work for them makes sense too. So I'm on the fence here, apparently

 

[Formaldehyde]

They need to redo the charter. The permanent member States have too much power of the veto, and a lot have changed since the post-war. It need to actually represent full democracy with all members having the same veto rights.

Amen to that. But the answer isn't to invite all member nations to the Security Council and give eacn one the power of veto. Nothing would ever get done.

They need to make the vote democratic with no vetoes at all. But they should require a large majority before the UN can take serious action against another country: Say 2/3rds vote of the members to condemn or sanction a country, and 80% of the vote to invade and occupy.

 

[Agarwaen]

The UN could use some formula like the the EU has, of requiring in the votes a % of the nations agreeing and representing a % os the world population. So that it would not be giving too much power to micronations or superfragmented regions of the world. Some more democracy could do some good.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The UN could use some formula like the the EU has, of requiring in the votes a % of the nations agreeing and representing a % os the world population. So that it would not be giving too much power to micronations or superfragmented regions of the world. Some more democracy could do some good.

While I agree that the current voting system of the UN is pretty bad, with such a rule Nigeria, India, China, Pakistan and Bangladesh would represent about half of all votes with 3.235 billion people.
The entire "West" (North America + EU) doesn't even amount to 1 billion people.

A single nation like the UK with ridiculous 60 million inhabitants had virtually no power at all.

 

[Ayn Rand]

We can't trust the different regions of the World to fully self-govern at this stage in their development. It's good that they are starting to learn how to sort their problems out, but we can't rush them.

We can anticipate that in the future, regional groups can carry out the subsidiary tasks of the UN and contribute to global management in this way. It is about progress by one step at a time. They are going to wobble, they are going to make mistakes.

Most importantly, there will be times when they have absolute failures of judgement and fall out of the global system. That's when we need the UN to be there to put them back on the right track.

So in this regard, the role of the UN will be strengthened, because the regions are learning to sort out their own problems and this frees up resources to develop the most desperate cases - countries like the Congo, who need the UNs help the most and which require persistent intervention to bring them back into the World.

 

[Souron]

The UN has always been a last resort, and so regional organization's peace keeping efforts should come before UN involvement.

I see regional organizations as being confederate nations, where most of the power of governing remains with the individual states, as was the case with the early united states. They don't change the game, they just add another layer of the same.