The UN - has it lost its teeth?

[PeachMonkey]

As a result of my current research on the subject, I am now of the opinion that the UN lost its teeth with its failure in enforcing UN General Assembly resolution 194.

The UN has generally failed miserably in regards to Israeli policy.

UN peacekeepers even obeyed orders from Egyptian and Syrian leaders to evacuate the area and leave Israel vulnerable to invasion in 1967.

The current instability in the middle East is directly descended from this loose end, and it is in that failure that the UN essentially removed its own backbone.

The UN's "backbone" resides entirely within its members. As long as the superpowers that control the Security Council behave strictly within their selfish, short-term interests, it can retain no credibility. As long as other members behave in the same fashion, the UN cannot live up to its mission.

I guess I could simply point to the fact that the US is now turning to NATO, however unsuccessfully, to take a more active role in Afghanistan, rather than the UN, as specific evidence of that.

Actually, there are a number of reasons for this that I consider completely unrelated to your thesis.

First, NATO invoked its mutual self-defense clause in regard to the 9/11 attacks, and considered US military action in Afghanistan as part of the legitimate response to those terrorist attacks. NATO still considers Afghanistan operations as related to that commitment.

Moreover, NATO members have large standing armies with a closer defense relationship. Alternately, the UN would have to work with member nations to pull together peacekeeping forces, which requires a great deal more politics, time, and energy to draw up.

Finally, the United States has very little credibility with other members of the UN after the Iraq escapade. Looking from the other perspective, if you feel that the UN failed in its duties to pursue Iraq, then it could be argued that the UN has little credibility with the US.

 

[Flatlander]

OK, I've done some more research, specifically on NATO and it's mandate. So, given that in fact NATO did invoke its charter for the first time in response to 9/11, and is in fact a better equipped and prepared organisation with respect to military operations, my question becomes: does the viablilty of NATO with respect to military application make the UN security council superfluous, given that the significant foundation of each is in the the power of the US military?

 

[heretic888]

OK, I've done some more research, specifically on NATO and it's mandate. So, given that in fact NATO did invoke its charter for the first time in response to 9/11, and is in fact a better equipped and prepared organisation with respect to military operations, my question becomes: does the viablilty of NATO with respect to military application make the UN security council superfluous, given that the significant foundation of each is in the the power of the US military?

No, because NATO only includes a handful of countries compared to the UN.

The 'NA' stands for 'North Atlantic', after all. Its very region-specific.

 

[Flatlander]

No, because NATO only includes a handful of countries compared to the UN.

NATO currently has 26 member states. The UN Security Council has 5 permanent members and 10 elected members, for a total of 15.

The 'NA' stands for 'North Atlantic', after all. Its very region-specific.

With respect to their membership, yes. With respect to their available theatre of operations, no.

It brings to light an interesting question - what need is there for both organizations? Why, given the end of the Russian threat, is there a need for NATO when presumably any and all issues could ostensibly be dealt with through the UN security council?

I guess I just find it interesting that the members of NATO can effectively circumnavigate the politics of the UN. Similarily, I find it interesting that in all their history, 9/11 was the first time that NATO induced their charter, yet the "War on Terror", a supposedly "defensive" tactic against the perpetrators of 9/11, when taken to Iraq, was not a NATO operation.

So the US has all kinds of options - NATO, the UN, or Unilateralism and/or coalition building.

 

[PeachMonkey]

NATO's limitations are not just about the location of their membership... it's also about the interests of their membership.

The NATO membership is a subset (originally a rather small one) of the world's nations as a whole. The North Atlantic Treaty states that the member nations will abide by the principles and purposes of the UN Charter... however, the key is that NATO exists to protect the interests of its members, specifically, to allow for mutual self-defense.

The United Nations, on the other hand, exists to allow all of the world's nations to work together to benefit humankind as a whole.

I agree with your point of view about NATO vs. the UN Security Council... however, given that the UN Security Council is effectively hamstrung by the veto-holding superpowers, the NATO nations will never rely on it for their self-defence. Moreover, although Russia is now considered a NATO partner, many of the member nations to not consider the threat presented to be over.

I'm sure you realize this already, but NATO was not involved in Iraq because there was no element of 9/11-related self-defense in the invasion. The so-called "evidence" of Iraq's threat to the Western world was by no means sufficient to give NATO members any reason to invoke the mutual self-defence clauses of the North Atlantic Treaty.

 

[michaeledward]

OK, I've done some more research, specifically on NATO and it's mandate. So, given that in fact NATO did invoke its charter for the first time in response to 9/11, and is in fact a better equipped and prepared organisation with respect to military operations, my question becomes: does the viablilty of NATO with respect to military application make the UN security council superfluous, given that the significant foundation of each is in the the power of the US military?

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was organized to counter an assumed threat from the Soviet Union of states. It's principle mission was collective self-defense from the Soviet Union.

As the Soviet Union has collapsed, Nato should dissolve itself. As the threat is no longer present, defense from that threat is no longer required. As I recall, some of those Eastern Bloc countries that were part of the threat are now part of NATO. Further, while Russia will not be offered an invitation to NATO, NATO has, ironically, entered into an agreement with Russia similar to the provisions of NATO membership.

Certainly, it would be the interest of involved parties to maintain some structure of collaboration in military training, but I believe this should be under a different organization. I believe the United Nations is one viable alternative for this training collaboration.