While compelling arguments can be made for either side, I personally cite the lengthy history of the UN to state that it was formed and largely has carried out its job as a realist institution. Member nations enjoy United Nations membership as a safeguard towards the security of their respective states in a confederation of alliances of convenience. While the five nations with veto power on the UN Security Council clearly hold more power in this system, weaker nations cooperate with at least one such nation to ensure their territorial integrity will be protected by a powerful allied state. One example I would like to point to as an early establishment of the UN realist agenda would be the Korean War.
On June 25, 1950, North Korean troops poured over the 38th parallel in an attempt to take over South Korea and unify the Korean peninsula. The United Nations saw this act of aggression as a severe violation of the survival of the South Korean state. Within hours, the UN Security Council passed UNSC Resolution 82, establishing the South Korean government as the lawful leaders of South Korea and calling for North Korea to withdraw north of the 38th parallel. The massive North Korean military was advancing rapidly through South Korea, capturing the capital city of Seoul, and forcing South Korean to a perimeter around the city of Pusan. UN troops, consisting mainly of Americans, reinforced the Pusan perimeter and made an amphibious landing at the port city of Inchon, well behind North Korean frontlines, forcing a hasty retreat by North Korean troops and ultimately saving the South Korean state. It was the first large-scale use of a multinational UN force to protect state sovereignty.
The Korean War was the UN Security Council’s first test of its goal to ensure state security on a global scale. The United Nations has since formed the Department of Peacekeeping operations to face the threats of the future. The Department’s mission states, “in accordance with the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) is dedicated to assisting the Member States and the Secretary-General in their efforts to maintain international peace and security.” In other words, the agenda of the UN has largely remained the same to the principles it was founded upon, the protection of territorial integrity of member states. UN negotiations carry with them the weight of the threat of military force, a precedent set by the Korean War. The presence of the United Nations has deterred multiple conflicts and serves for the survival of the nation-state through a system of loose alliances, making the UN a realist institution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Where was the weight of the UN's threat of military force in Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan? Is this weight even considered by Iran and North Korea when they make decisions on their nuclear aspirations? Korea is a good example, but just about the only example. Nations no longer feel safe by simply being a member of the UN. Thus the UN has lost whatever sense of realism it once had.
p.s. i think i overheard you say you were playing devil's advocate- in which case well played.
I would question whether the DPKO is a realist based concept. I understand that ultimately we can relate most things back to national security- if the US is backing the DPKO, then it is helping to stabilize other nation's governments, this helps ensure US security by containing possible conflict areas-but the links are rather tenuous. (Very good of you to play devil's advocate, if you are)
Post a Comment