International Organizations: A Critique of The United Nations

One of the most important and applauded aspects of international organizations is their assumed ability to facilitate cooperation among states. International Organizations aim to provide a neutral environment in which states can resolve disputes peacefully or collectively agree on particular issues. In reality and practice however, this is usually not the case. Many criticize the effectiveness of international organizations, and for this post I will specifically discuss certain critiques of the United Nations and why I believe this organization fails to meet its original intended purpose.

            

The United Nations was created in order to provide collective security and promote peace. The main component of the United Nations, the Security Council, operates under the overarching commitment that all states will attack an aggressor state or if one of their members is attacked. This commitment however is not upheld by states/members, even when rare consensus on action is reached. In a recent example (2006 Israel-Lebanon crisis) no action was taken to enforce the agreed resolution to disarm terrorist organizations. In addition, there were no real consequences, as there usually aren't, for violating the Security Council Resolution. This issue take legitimacy from the Security Council and the UN itself, because of its inability to enforce its resolutions and furthermore impose authority when these resolutions are not followed through. It also shows that its members may not actually take the organization they comprise seriously, which is obviously problematic.

            

The Security Council has five permanent members including: The United States, Russia, China, France, and England. This is said to provide stability and efficacy for decision making, however it cannot be expected that all 5 states would agree completely on particular issues. Since each of these permanent members has veto power, it can be argued that these members may often disagree and that no action can be agreed upon and therefore no action can be taken. I question how fair this is, on a small scale level and on a large scale as well. If one of the five members with veto power is not in favor, is it fair to the others to deny action because of it? Or is that part of the system completely flawed and unfair to other members/states that have risen in power over time and might deserve veto power/permanent membership as well?

            

Another critique involving the five permanent members of the UN includes having hypocritical behavior and a sort of leniency with these five. While the UN has condemned Israel for its treatment and behavior towards Palestinians, it has not done the same for China’s similar actions towards Tibetans. This can clearly be tied back to China having permanent membership and veto power as well; any effort to even slightly correct China on this matter would probably render no results.

            

So, if the UN is not exactly neutral and unbiased, and does not seem to take clear and guided action in resolving the issues it has at hand, what is it doing? -Definitely not its intended purpose as an international organization.

-Karla Perez

Main sources- http://www.conservapedia.com/United_Nations

Lecture 11/5