Introduction
Naturally human beings are bound to have conflicts and disagreements which consequently
threaten social peace within the societies they reside in. On a higher scale, sovereign states
are bound to encounter problems which may vary from and are not limited to geographical
boundaries, trade, natural resources and technological innovations. The UN was established
after the Second World War (1945) to minimise and solve these problems in the best possible
peacekeeping missions (UN Charter, Article 1:1). Peacekeeping missions involve military
personnel without enforcement powers to maintain and restore international peace (Findlay,
2002). Needless to mention, the use of force has been one such solution lest peaceful means
turn out to be futile. This essay will thus refute the need to resort to the use of force by the
UN to bring about global peace.
Force as defined by the UN Charter
The UN Charter reads in Article 2:4 that “all members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
21 | Page
independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations”. From this article, it is not stated explicitly what force is and should be.
However, history has shown through passed resolutions where the use of force was used that
it implies economic sanctions, travelling prohibitions and declaring war over the perpetrators.
Grounds for the use of force
Chapter 7: Article 41 states that “the Security Council may decide what measures, not
involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may
call upon the Members of the UN to apply such measures. These may include interruption of
economic relations and of rail, sea, air, communication and the severance of diplomatic
relations”.
11
Some member states or non-members have in some instances given a blind eye
to the measures stated above hence triggering Article 42 of the same Chapter that “Should the
Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or
have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be
necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include
demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of members of the
United Nations”. www.un.org.
Low and behold, some countries like the US have resorted to the use of force over other
states hiding behind Article 51 which states that "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair
the inherent right to individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a
state." For example the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan with the USA being cynical of the
existence and manufacturing of WMD in these countries.
Refuting points
There is a greater need to highlight that Chapter1: Article 2.3 of the UN charter clearly state
that “Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered”. Thus the use of force
is inconsistent with what the UN purports to, unless the use of guns and armoured vehicles to
preserve peace is seen as peaceful by certain individuals within the structures of the UN.
As much as the super powers of the UN wouldn’t like to admit it, the truth is that they have a
huge influence as to when and where to use force in order to uphold global peace. Their
interests are always at forefront. The United States and the Western countries are very
11
www.un.org.
22 | Page
interested in strengthening their political, economic and cultural influence both in
Afghanistan and in the Central Asian countries and will seek to be a major force in the
distribution and consumption of energy and other natural resources in the region
12
. Some
countries have in the past gone against the resolutions made by the UN and were never
responded to with the use of force. As an example, South Africa resisted UN condemnation
of apartheid over decades. This clearly shows that there are other means of bringing peace as
led by famous and influential men like Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi. However,
these can be too slow and ineffective
13
.
The Council has repeatedly issued unclear and unimplementable mandates which have failed
to mention what chapter of the UN Charter an operation was being authorized under, resorted
to neutral terms such as ‘all necessary means’ to convey the possibility that force might be
used and abused the concept of deterrence. The Security Council’s mandates have left force
commanders and their peacekeepers vulnerable and in some cases mortally endangered,
Rwanda being the worst example due to the resistance of the perpetrators
14
.
The use of force by the UN to preserve peace is also a wrong thing to do taking in to account
that fighting, displacement and suffering of the ordinary civilians is inevitable when force is
used to preserve peace e.g.in Syria people 92,901 have died since the conflict started
15
, more
than 6 million Syrians have been displaced by the three-year-old war, four times the number
of just a year ago
16
. The implication that can be drawn from the displacement of people is that
families have split, children have lost their parents and relatives and husbands have lost
wives.
From research
17
“the secretaries-general, although they are the commanders-in-chief of UN
military forces…have been essentially militarily illiterate. While some have made courageous
decisions regarding the use of force, they have mostly, like the Security Council itself, failed
to ensure that they were provided with a range of military advice, instead acting on instinct
and the advice of a select few” (p.352). The only assumption that can be deduced from the
above citation is that the secretary generals mostly rely on the permanent members to make
decisions on the use of force. Giving them the huge task of being commanders in chief of the
12
Gusev (2012)
13
O’Neil (1997).
14
Finlay (2002).
15
Koerth-Baker (2013).
16
www.bbc.co.uk
17
Finlay (2002).
23 | Page
UN forces notwithstanding their lack of military experience is suicidal and shows little regard
for human life by the UN.
Article 23:1 in actual fact comprises the principles of equality among member states to the
effect that there are those labelled as permanent members and the select few from the general
assembly to make up the Security Council. It goes on to mention that the selected members of
the Security Council will be done on equitable geographical distribution. My belief is that
using geographical distribution as criteria is immaterial because what is of security concern to
South Africa may not necessarily be of concern to Botswana or Lesotho. Thus everybody
should have a say in the decisions that so much affect the people of this interconnected world
in trying to bring global peace.
Innocent civilians and peacekeepers have lost their lives in the process of using force to
bring about world peace. According to The Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, there
is a common argument that have been deployed recently to prove that the use of force was the
most effective method to address problems, although all experience of such interventions had
demonstrated that it was ineffective, meaningless and destructive
18
. It is not only the human
life lost in this case, but the vegetation and infrastructure too.
Conclusion
It goes without saying that the use of force by the UN to bring about world peace and order is
rather wrong. Article 41, 42 and 51 which pave way for the use of force to bring world order
are not in sync with Article 33 wherein countries shall resort to negotiation, mediation,
judicial settlement and arbitration. Moreover, the use of force results in loss of lives, hunger,
and poverty, displacement of people and destruction of property.
No comments:
Post a Comment