UN debate - What did it do actually?

[Tahuti]

Voluntarily spinned off from the Israel and minor questions thread. The point of it is to start a debate about what the UN actually has meant since its inception. I have copied all the previous exchanges here as well. For those who do not feel like reading through all the quoted pieces of text, my thesis is that the current international law since 1945 has encouraged irregular warfare as the UN in its turn encourage nations to not surrender to militarily stronger conquering states, to the detriment of the security of its populace and the world in general, as stronger states are more able to able to protect the populace in occupied territories but can no longer fulfill that obligation (of protection) as it has become de-facto illegal by essentially banning all changes of borders.

Also, I would like to add that modern states have an interest in international law and immutable borders because of centralisation. Without an entity like the UN to protect them, most modern states would have a single point of failure that can be exploited rather easily by militarily succesful nations and completely wipe away existing political structures - consider the German occupation of Europe or the Allied occupation of Germany for instance.

The UN might very well be a culprit in prolonging conflicts. Because of its definitions what includes a lawful conquest, there can never be one-to-one peace treaties to end wars quickly as the side that has clearly lost will have the backing of the UN behind. Before the UN, wars tended to be more common but more easily resolvable: Eventually, there would be a stalemate or a winner and a loser, and the two belligerents would sign a peace treaty ending hostilities. The problem is that the UN encourages nations to claim a moral highground - which may not necessarily exist or even necessary for that matter - and promulgates laws and resolutions that cause conflicts to be completely unresolvable, in turn encouraging terrorism as political actors that are militarily exhausted are no longer so in terms of morale.
In a world without the UN, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be solved fairly quickly: One side would surrender, have its terms dictated, after which peace can follow. Most importantly, there is no longer any need for third-party negotiation (something which has become horribly common since the creation of the UN as well) since less power is needed to force resolution, whereas nowadays, the practically the entire world needs to look the same way. This creates a further problem of internationalising conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict ought to be niche interest (comparable to say the Nagarno-Karabakh conflict), not a mass cause which provokes rallies supporting either side all over the world and causes every country no matter how far away from the conflict zone to speak out one way or the other. This is the kind of behavior that causes political tensions and destroys stability and peace in the long run, despite the UN's declarations to the contrary.

That's in interesting position, and I don't know enough to adequately counter it except to note that you're basically taking a "might makes right" stance. I don't think I like where that would lead. Lots of dead people, for sure.

I agree this can be called 'might makes right'. Though it actually used to be a legal concept in premodern international law known as 'the right of conquest'. This is not say this should be a normal state of affairs for individuals, though we are talking about relations between states here. I'll word my position differently: One of the key tasks of a state is to protect its own populace and if a war is not resolved timely, states can no longer fulfill that obligation. By artificially protracting conflicts as I believe the UN does, states are effectively rendered impotent to the detriment off all, a war of all against all.

Plenty of short wars are preferable over protacted wars with no ending, because the latter will cause lasting emnity. Furthermore, if WWII was a total war in that all the people of a nation where was somewhat involved in the war, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a Total Total War (double 'Total' not being a typo here) in that not only the entire populace of the nations involved are dragged in the war, but that it has a worldwide reach which provokes opinions and aggression from other countries all over the world.

No wars are preferable to any wars, do you agree?

So if the UN has resulted in fewer wars, then that's a net gain.

War is inevitable. We can only make them less barbaric, not eliminate them entirely. Besides, we are too much inclined to judge wars on economic and human losses, not necessarily on human gain, like technological advances, solving outstanding political issues, defining communities culturally.

Besides, there is naught gain from less wars if wars become more protracted and barbaric as a result of reducing them, much less when legal structures to avoid war simply build up anger and could potentially unleash wars that are more destructive.

What do the historians here think of this assertion?

I think he's conflating two separate trends. Around the time the UN came around, the dominant manner of warfare in the world became guerrilla, and was waged by irregulars. Those are going to be much harder to resolve regardless of whether there's some kind of international body policing those things (unless Kaiserguard is opining the loss of the "screw it, let's just use genocide/ethnic cleansing to solve the problem" option?). In addition, the collapse of the colonial order gave rise to a whole new set of inter-national issues, most notably the fact that the colonially-drawn borders have zero bearing in ethnic reality, and so created all sorts of problems which are not easily resolvable. On the other hand, The UN solidified those borders as something immutable (after all, look at who created the effing UN, it wasn't the Angolans or Kurds) which rallied the world to stop the erosion of the order which created those borders by portraying any change of them as "illegal." So I suppose in that area, Kaiserguard has a point.

In other words, it was the passing of ships in the night. The UN was created to resolve conflicts between Westphalian entities with Clausewitzian goals, but at the same time as the UN was created, warfare was already shifting away from being primarily waged by such entities or in light of such goals.

Nevertheless, I think that the two trends are actually interrelated. While one of the two could have arisen separately, the two trends have actually fed each other. Since the UN tends to pick a side for the weaker country - or more accurately, allies of the weaker country can use the UN as a tool to boost the weaker party's morale - to paint the more powerful belligerent as an international threat. Thus, that state de-jure always in an position of illegality, and the morale of the weaker party will simply be increased infinitely. This encourages guerilla warfare, due to a combination of low actual military capacity and high morale. In a Pre-UN world, militarily defeated political entities would have long been broken, and have surrendered uncoditionally, which allows for a far longer period of normalcy as well as a period of normalcy more easy to reach.

So by painting change of borders by force as inherently evil, the populations of vanquished states suffer, since the conquering state can no longer appropriate the conquered state's institutions, who are by current international laws since 1945 tempted to simply fight on as zombie entities. This is particular ironic noting that if the UN existed before WWII and Nazi Germany was a member, WWII would likely have continued - possibly to this day - with a Nazi insurgency in Germany against Allied Forces and possibly Al-Qaida style threats to civilians in Allied countries.

Also, because the UN has a tendency to stall resolution of conflicts, it also naturally breeds emnity. Short conflicts tend to be forgotten and forgiven, though longer conflicts that last for decades are not. And while the amount of wars have been reduced, wars also have become more protracted and hate-filled.

 

[Agent327]

Voluntarily spinned off from the Israel and minor questions thread. The point of it is to start a debate about what the UN actually has meant since its inception. I have copied all the previous exchanges here as well. For those who do not feel like reading through all the quoted pieces of text, my thesis is that the current international law since 1945 has encouraged irregular warfare as the UN in its turn encourage nations to not surrender to militarily stronger conquering states, to the detriment of the security of its populace and the world in general, as stronger states are more able to able to protect the populace in occupied territories but can no longer fulfill that obligation (of protection) as it has become de-facto illegal by essentially banning all changes of borders.

Also, I would like to add that modern states have an interest in international law and immutable borders because of centralisation. Without an entity like the UN to protect them, most modern states would have a single point of failure that can be exploited rather easily by militarily succesful nations and completely wipe away existing political structures - consider the German occupation of Europe or the Allied occupation of Germany for instance.

Humbug. UN peacekeeping only becomes effective after any cease-fire agreement.

The UN might very well be a culprit in prolonging conflicts. Because of its definitions what includes a lawful conquest, there can never be one-to-one peace treaties to end wars quickly as the side that has clearly lost will have the backing of the UN behind. Before the UN, wars tended to be more common but more easily resolvable: Eventually, there would be a stalemate or a winner and a loser, and the two belligerents would sign a peace treaty ending hostilities. The problem is that the UN encourages nations to claim a moral highground - which may not necessarily exist or even necessary for that matter - and promulgates laws and resolutions that cause conflicts to be completely unresolvable, in turn encouraging terrorism as political actors that are militarily exhausted are no longer so in terms of morale.
In a world without the UN, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be solved fairly quickly: One side would surrender, have its terms dictated, after which peace can follow. Most importantly, there is no longer any need for third-party negotiation (something which has become horribly common since the creation of the UN as well) since less power is needed to force resolution, whereas nowadays, the practically the entire world needs to look the same way.

More humbug. The recent Israeli offensive was ended for two reasons: it had no apparent military goal and Israel's most important ally was leaning on it to end hostilities. The UN effectively did nothing.

This creates a further problem of internationalising conflicts: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict ought to be niche interest (comparable to say the Nagarno-Karabakh conflict), not a mass cause which provokes rallies supporting either side all over the world and causes every country no matter how far away from the conflict zone to speak out one way or the other. This is the kind of behavior that causes political tensions and destroys stability and peace in the long run, despite the UN's declarations to the contrary.

And more humbug. There's a reason why there is international interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it is completely unrelated to anything UN.

I suggest you google the history of the UN some time before starting a thread like this.

 

[Tahuti]

You have managed to completely evade my points.

 

[Agent327]

No. You don't have any. That's an essential difference. The purpose of the UN, contrary to what you seem to think, is not 'to make peace'. UN peacekeepers (as the name already implies) only appear after conflicting parties agree to end hostilities. Your perceived 'UN influence prolonging conflicts' is a mirage not conforming to historical reality - as your own examples already illustrate.

I note you haven't addressed any objections I've made.

EDIT: I feel I've been a bit too harsh. You seem to perceive history as a series of (international) conflicts. That's entirely possible, although the majority of the world population doesn't experience such conflicts. But the UN isn't designed to deal with such conflicts, nor is it its primary function to deal with such. The UN is in essence a consultation body; it can only be effective if its member nations wish it to be. The post-Yugoslavia wars and the Iraq-Iran war are examples of both the UN being largely ineffective or not playing a role at all. (And these are only two examples from most recent history.) This means there can also be no question of any 'conflict prolonging role'. So your general conclusions do not follow.

 

[Tahuti]

No. You don't have any. That's an essential difference. The purpose of the UN, contrary to what you seem to think, is not 'to make peace'. UN peacekeepers (as the name already implies) only appear after conflicting parties agree to end hostilities. Your perceived 'UN influence prolonging conflicts' is a mirage not conforming to historical reality - as your own examples already illustrate.

The purpose of the UN is to prevent war and foster international co-operation. However, doing so is a little bit hard when you unintentionally prolong wars because of the laws and resolutions you make.

I note you haven't addressed any objections I've made.

That is because it seems - at least to me - that your objections do not directly address my points. For instance, you are referring to the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, though the conflict structurally is still continuing. As noted earlier, it is my contention that the UN plays a role in withholding a suitable longterm solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the UN isn't designed to deal with such conflicts, nor is it its primary function to deal with such. The UN is in essence a consultation body; it can only be effective if its member nations wish it to be. The post-Yugoslavia wars and the Iraq-Iran war are examples of both the UN being largely ineffective or not playing a role at all. (And these are only two examples from most recent history.) This means there can also be no question of any 'conflict prolonging role'. So your general conclusions do not follow.

At various points, the UN made it clear that changes in international borders have to be approved by the UN itself. Until space aliens appear and states are convinced that a UN army is the way to go, there is no way to enforce this. And states that legally exceed their recognised borders are not able fulfill their duties of protecting the populace in what they consider to be their land because of technicalities imposed by the UN.

One of the most important tasks of a state is to protect the populace that lives in its borders. I consider this much more important than some maintaining some lines arbitrarily defined by some vague international entity. So the UN is stuck in the middle: It makes laws and resolutions it cannot possibly enforce, yet the formal existence of such encourages the wrong kind of groups (let's say terrorists).

 

[classical_hero]

The UN is either incompetent or complicit with Hamas in Gaza because under it's nose Hamas was able to build tunnels that violate international law and had buildings used as storage facilities for weapons.

 

[Tahuti]

Please note that this thread is about what the UN actually meant in general for world politics - even in the absence of Israel/Hamas/the conflict between them.

 

[Perfection]

Link to video.

 

[Agent327]

The purpose of the UN is to prevent war and foster international co-operation.

Really? Says who?

However, doing so is a little bit hard when you unintentionally prolong wars because of the laws and resolutions you make.

So you say. But you fail to provide any proof for that assertion.

That is because it seems - at least to me - that your objections do not directly address my points. For instance, you are referring to the recent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, though the conflict structurally is still continuing. As noted earlier, it is my contention that the UN plays a role in withholding a suitable longterm solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Actually, that was your own example. I mentioned the post-Yugoslavia and Iraq-Iran wars, which you conveniently ignore. Your points actually have little relevance with what the UN is and does. So the problems you notice may have nothing at all to do with the UN - except in your own perception. That doesn't man those problems do not exist, merely that there need be no UN-correlation.

At various points, the UN made it clear that changes in international borders have to be approved by the UN itself. Until space aliens appear and states are convinced that a UN army is the way to go, there is no way to enforce this. And states that legally exceed their recognised borders are not able fulfill their duties of protecting the populace in what they consider to be their land because of technicalities imposed by the UN.

Circular argument: you say the UN insists on keeping international borders as they are, then note that is is unrealistic and end with claiming the UN's insistence is responsible for... trouble. Since the UN, according to your own assertion, can't actually enforce these internationally sacred borders it should be excluded as a variable from any cross-border trouble. In your argument, that is.

One of the most important tasks of a state is to protect the populace that lives in its borders. I consider this much more important than some maintaining some lines arbitrarily defined by some vague international entity. So the UN is stuck in the middle: It makes laws and resolutions it cannot possibly enforce, yet the formal existence of such encourages the wrong kind of groups (let's say terrorists).

The UN doesn't make laws. It may accept resolutions, but these are essentially non-binding. The UN are, as I mentioned, primarily a body of consultation between member nations. Secondly, I'm not sure how you see UN resolutions encourage, say, terrorists.

Your perception with what the UN is and does does not confirm with reality. I suggest you read the UN wiki article for some basic knowledge as concerns the function of the UN.

The same goes for you, CH:

The UN is either incompetent or complicit with Hamas in Gaza because under it's nose Hamas was able to build tunnels that violate international law and had buildings used as storage facilities for weapons.

You seem to suppose that the UN is supposed to babysit Hamas or something similar. I don't know where you get such ideas, but they have little to do with the UN and how they function. The prime function of UN peacekeeper presence is to try and keep hostile parties separated. If neither of these parties are in agreement on this, UN forces are pretty much powerless.

 

[Tahuti]

Link to video.

For some reason I thought I about it before you posted it. I should have placed it in the OP.

Really? Says who?

The UN itself?

So you say. But you fail to provide any proof for that assertion.

I am merely offering a perspective. You are free to ignore it.

Actually, that was your own example. I mentioned the post-Yugoslavia and Iraq-Iran wars, which you conveniently ignore. Your points actually have little relevance with what the UN is and does. So the problems you notice may have nothing at all to do with the UN - except in your own perception. That doesn't man those problems do not exist, merely that there need be no UN-correlation.

While biased focus is a valid criticism of the UN, this was not the one I was making here.

Besides, take Abkhazia, Crimea and South Ossetia: Who is going to cause Russia to withdraw? No one. So Georgian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russians relations are now bound to be in an eternal state of anormalcy as long as the 'international community' es about these territories.

The UN doesn't make laws. It may accept resolutions, but these are essentially non-binding. The UN are, as I mentioned, primarily a body of consultation between member nations. Secondly, I'm not sure how you see UN resolutions encourage, say, terrorists.

Your perception with what the UN is and does does not confirm with reality. I suggest you read the UN wiki article for some basic knowledge as concerns the function of the UN.

The UN is a bunch of laws. Besides, Security Council resolutions ARE binding.

 

[warpus]

The UN is the best we're going to get for now in terms of a forum where the world's countries can sit down and discuss problems.

Why won't it be better anytime soon? Because the world's powers want the UN to be their own personal playground. They want things to go down by their rules, even if there is overwhelming consensus from the rest of the planet that things should be done differently.

The UN was set up after WW2.. by the victors. It's heavily slanted in their favour. Why would any of them give up their veto power? I don't see things changing anytime soon... and if you really want to reform the UN, getting rid of the vetoes is what's needed.. A lot of other reforms are needed as well, but that's a biggie.