International organisations and global security

Why and how did the UN adapt its security mechanism during the Cold War?

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The principle functions of the United Nations are to maintain international peace and security, to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. [1]

The Security Council was intended to embody the main aim of the United Nations namely to maintain international peace through the system of collective security. [2]As it is stated in the Charter under the Article 24 of the fifth Chapter the Security Council was given the primary but not sole responsibility in the realm of maintenance of international security.

As the United Nations' security mechanism is based on the idea of collective security it is inevitable to clarify the meaning in which the concept is used in this actual essay. The collective security is a security arrangement which provides security for all states, by the action of all states, against all states that might challenge the existing order by using force, threatening the peace or breaching the international security. It can make much more robust deterrence by ensuring that aggressors will be met with an opposing coalition. Stability is more likely to emerge through cooperation rather than competition. The reason why collective security provides a more stable environment is that the collective security organisations institutionalise and ameliorate the security dilemma. [3]

The basic preconditions of the collective security were present at the birth of the United Nations. The followings are the basic preconditions: all states in the system must be vulnerable to collective sanctions, major powers must have compatible views of a stable and acceptable international order, and major powers must enjoy a minimum of political solidarity and moral community. Collective security expects the policies of nations to be inspired by the idea of mutual assistance. [4]

During the era of the Cold War the above-mentioned pre-requisites were abolished due to the intense rivalry of the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. These superpowers could not be threatened by any collective measures and no state would dare to take coercive action against them. The international order turned into two opposing “coalitions”. The political solidarity and moral community were washed away in the ideological battles. There has been anything but mutual assistance between the Western and Eastern Bloc.

In the Charter the Security Council was given the main responsibility and the permanent members acquired veto power; power of the veto is contained in the Article 27 of the Charter, all non-procedural (inclusion items on the agenda, removal of an item, rulings of the President) or substantive matters could be subject to a permanent member veto; in order to ensure the prompt and clear action on the behalf of the United Nations. This is exactly what brings us to why the UN could not operate properly in the Cold War. The permanent members of the Council used their “concurring” votes or negative veto power to prevent sensitive issues, resolutions from passing through the Security Council. This practice resulted in a complete gridlock of the Security Council and the United Nations. But even under these circumstances the Organisation turned out to be useful as it could whittle down some serious conflicts behind the scene. However, the security architecture could not work as it was envisioned.

Let us assume that minor conflict occurs between undisclosed parties. The easiest way to solve such a dispute would be to engage in bilateral diplomatic negotiations. If the parties cannot come to an agreement in face-to-face talks they could even invite a regional organisation to take part in the process. Although the provision of the Chapter VIII of the Charter established the supremacy of the United Nations over regional bodies in the field of enforcement actions but it also encourages such organisations to make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of the disputes. [5] Parties to a dispute also can use other means mentioned under the Chapter VI. Article 33 such as enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement to name but a few. As it seems the most important aim is to settle a conflict at a micro level without involving the Security Council.

But in some cases when the dispute escalates so that it could not be solved at micro level the Security Council shall take steps necessary to facilitate peace. Any member of the United Nations or even a state which is not a member may bring to the attention of the Security Council or the General Assembly any dispute to which it is party. Basically the Security Council as the main responsible for peace and security would deal with the issue at hand. The General Assembly is not allowed to discuss or recommend a solution while the Security Council is actively seized with the matter. Although the Security Council has the right to refer certain cases to the competence of the General Assembly. [6]

After the case was brought before the Security Council, the Council must decide whether to make recommendations or in cases where the matter is considered so serious they may opt for coercive action. Under Chapter VII the Security Council was granted to take mandatory economic or military action against an aggressor or to combat a situation which simply threatens international peace and security. Military action may not be preceded by economic sanctions.

As it was said before due to the cold-war circumstances the outlined security mechanism was outgunned in the sense of applicability. Council became almost totally incapable of utilizing its collective security structure. It could not take action in time of international crisis using the methods provided by the Charter. But it managed to secure a bit narrower role with the establishment of the peacekeeping function.

Peacekeeping became to be a useful tool in the field of conflict management. The core idea behind the peacekeeping is not to get involved in the fights rather to support an existing ceasefire or ongoing peace negotiations. So peacekeeping “has come to be defined as an operation involving military personnel, but without enforcement powers, undertaken by the United Nations to help maintain or restore international peace and security in areas of conflict. “[7]

The main features of the peacekeeping missions can be directly derived from the Charter. The main elements are listed below:

The consent of the parties to the dispute.
Impartiality.
Non-use of force except in self-defence.

Basically all of the principles come from the limited authority of the General Assembly. To understand this, we must take a look at the historical development of traditional peacekeeping.

The very first peacekeeping mission was the United Nations Emergency Force which was deployed to the Middle East; precisely it was placed to Egyptian territory in 1956 after the outbreak of the Suez Crisis between Egypt and Israel. France and the United Kingdom also launched an air strike against Egyptian targets, which was followed by a landing of their troops at the northern end of the Canal. The Security Council held a meeting on 30 October at the request of the United States, which submitted a draft resolution calling upon Israel to withdraw its armed forces. Although it was not adopted due to British and French vetoes. Another draft resolution by the Soviet Union was also rejected because of the same reason. The case was transferred to the General Assembly, in line with the procedure provided by General Assembly resolution 377 entitled “Uniting for peace”. [8]Later, the General Assembly adopted a vast number of resolutions regarding the Suez crisis and finally the UNEF I mission was established. In my opinion this case clearly highlighted the main problem of the power politics applied during the Cold War by the permanent five. On the other hand it pointed out the utility and effectiveness of the previously adopted Uniting for Peace resolution.

The essence of the General Assembly resolution 377 also known as “Uniting for Peace” can be summarised thus:

It “resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security. If not in session at the time, the General Assembly may meet in emergency special session within twenty-four hours of a request therefore such emergency special session shall be called if requested by the Security Council on the vote of any seven members, or by a majority of the Members of the United Nations.”[9]

The deployment of the UNEF I mission and the adoption of the “Uniting for Peace” resolution are considered to be fundamental cornerstones in the development of the United Nations' peacekeeping function.

After the brief detour we are supposed to return to the discussion of the basic principles. As it was said before these elements are direct consequences of the narrow secondary role of the General Assembly in the field of maintenance of peace.

Peacekeeping troops can only be placed after the consent of the parties to dispute was obtained. Usually the parties shall give their approval not only for the mission itself rather for the composition of the force and for the scope of the mandate also. The consent of the parties is required because the General Assembly can only make recommendations which are therefore not binding decisions. Impartiality is deemed to be a crucial part. Parties would not accept such a support which is fully biased and also the main concept of being observes would be compromised. The answer for the point concerning self-defence is based on the question of use of force. Just the Security Council of the United Nations has the legal competence to authorise use of force in case of coercive measures. As the peacekeeping is voluntary based on the consent and the goodwill of the parties, it does not constitute a coercive action. Although the right to self-defence is such an inalienable and indisputable standard or norm to which everyone is entitled to either a state or a group of UN peacemakers.

Furthermore it seems obvious that the relative advantages and disadvantages of these operations shall be discussed in this present essay.

The flexibility is said to be the most important or central factor which enabled the application of the technique. As the peacekeeping has not been institutionalised therefore there is no formal restraint which could hinder its survival and development. Moreover it could escape the bureaucratic pitfalls.

Secondly the multiplicity of its functions is also proved to be useful. The United Nations' Charter was aimed to resolve inter-state conflicts but obviously it cannot prevent their occurrence completely. The United Nations had to deal several times with intra-state violence such as civil wars, rebellions. Peacekeeping thanks to its diverse repertoire, managed to operate in both types of situations.

Mainly the functions fall into three baskets: military, political/governmental, civil. The military aspects mostly involves monitoring of ceasefires, supervision of the withdrawal of the forces, maintenance of peace, regulation of disposition and movement of military forces, verification of security agreements, just to name but a few. Political or governmental side means maintenance of territorial integrity, provision of law and order, ensuring political independence, security of the population, conduction of elections and referendum, verification of human rights agreements and so on. Civil purposes can be provision of humanitarian assistance, monitoring and regulation of the flow of refugees, provision of the confidence-building measures.

Thirdly the deployment implies international legitimacy which was granted by the approval of the United Nations and thereby it means the approval of the overall international community. Moreover this international legitimacy causes a kind of deterrence effect. The parties to a dispute usually refrain from using force against UN peacekeepers.

Last but not least the missions tend to set limited goals, objectives so they can avoid being caught up in the middle of the diplomatic give and take. The major roles are about enabling the negotiations to resume, and preventing fighting from flaring anew. The peacekeeping operations mostly run alongside peacebuilding and peacemaking efforts to create a better situation in which parties might be able to strike an agreement and give up hostility.

Despite the benefits and advantages of peacekeeping there are still much left to be desired. The lack of permanent UN forces can pose a problem. The troop contribution is made on voluntary basis and it needs special agreement which can prolong the initiation phase. Peacekeeping missions are financed out of regular UN budget, which can also lead to controversy which was clearly demonstrated when the Soviet Union refused to pay its contribution to the UNEF I. Many argue that peacekeeping as a standalone operation does not offer a viable solution; it just freezes the dispute rather than to solves it. But still the most striking issue is the credibility. It was widely questioned during and after several half-accomplished missions. The credibility was undermined by the rumours about misbehaving blue helmets. They were accused of sexual abuse and other crimes.

To conclude, peacekeeping offered a feasible and practical solution during the Cold War tension. Although without further improvements it cannot stand a chance against the changing conditions of the post-cold war world. Obviously as an individual project it cannot solve a dispute but it can ameliorate hostility and provide a better environment for 'peacebuilding'.

Bibliography:

A.M. Cox, 1967, Prospects for Peacekeeping, The Brookings Institution
C.Kupchan & C.Kupchan, Concerts and Collective Security and the Future of Europe, International Security, 1991, Vol. 16, No.1
A.B. Fetherston, 1993, Towards a Theory of United Nations Peacekeeping, Peace Research Report, University of Bradford
MORRIS, Mr. Justin, 2009, International Organisations and Global Security Module - Lecture Handout Number 5, Assessed: 01/12/2009 - eBridge, University of Hull
Mohammad ARIF, 1999, UN Peace Keeping - Theory and Practice, http://www.defencejournal.com/apr99/un-peace-keeping.htm - Assessed: 14/11/2009
I. J. Rikhye & K. Skjelbaek, 1990, The United Nations and Peacekeeping: Results, Limitations and Prospects: The lessons of 40 Years if Experience, The Macmillan Press LTD
K.Thompson, Collective Security Re-examined, American Political Review, 1953, Vol. 47.
Charter of the United Nations, 1945, San Francisco
United Nations Peacekeeping Operations: Principles and Guidelines, Capstone Doctrine, http://pbpu.unlb.org/pbps/Library/Capstone_Doctrine_ENG.pdf, Assessed: 14/11/2009
N.D.White, 1993, Keeping the Peace: The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Manchester University Press
Middle East UNEF I Background - http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html#five - Assessed: 15/11/2009

Charter of the United Nations, Preamble, 1945
N.D.White, 1993, Keeping the Peace: The United Nations and the Maintenance of International Peace and Security, Manchester University Press
C.Kupchan & C.Kupchan, Concerts and Collective Security and the Future of Europe, International Security, 1991, Vol. 16, No.1
K.Thompson, Collective Security Re-examined, American Political Review, 1953, Vol. 47.
Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VIII., Article 52 & 53.
Charter of the United Nations Chapter VI, Article 33-37.
Mohammad ARIF, 1999, UN Peace Keeping - Theory and Practice, http://www.defencejournal.com/apr99/un-peace-keeping.htm - Assessed: 14/11/2009
Middle East UNEF I Background - http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unef1backgr2.html#five - Assessed: 15/11/2009
Morris, Mr. Justin, International Organisations and Global Security Module - Lecture Handout Number 5, 2009, Assessed: 01/12/2009 - eBridge., University of Hull

Essay removal request