UN and LoN comparison Essay

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-05 01:26pm

The question to answer was Will the United Nations face the same problems that faced the League of Nations in the 1930's.

League of Nations, United Nations Paragraph Assignment
Ted Archbold

In international organisations, it is not so much countries agreeing on what to do, as it is politicians agreeing. Politicians bring different viewpoints to such organisations; politicians must take decisions from the organization and present them to their own populaces. The United Nations is not immune to such problems.

The League of Nations was formed in 1920, a result of the Paris Peace conference after the end of World War I. The main driving force behind the League of Nations was U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, yet the U.S. Government refused to join. To function, the League of Nations depended on the good will of nations, discussion of issues, and if need be, economic sanctions. A major failing point of the League of Nations was the lack of leadership, and the inability it had to use force. The League of Nations was a place for discussion only, not a place for action to be taken against countries. When it was challenged by Japan, Italy and Germany, it failed, for all it could do in the last resort was expel.

At the end of World War II, the victorious powers formed the United Nations. Unlike the League of Nations, the United Nations had a strong leadership, in the form of the Security Council, with its five permanent members, this time including the U.S.A. and ten rotating members. From 1946-1991 it operated with the three main world blocs: the West, the Communist bloc, and the Third World. During the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war, the United Nations provided a forum for the politicians. While politicians could use the UN as a place to grandstand, the threat of war was ever present, and no politician wanted to start World War III.

Since 1991 this United Nations has no longer existed; it has been replaced by a second United Nations; exactly the same as the first in structure, but operating in a quite different world. The New World Order has one superpower. The United Nations has changed from being a forum where the three main blocs could discuss and decide, to a place where it is one superpower vs. the rest. The politicians of the superpower are getting frustrated by the slow pace of joint action, and they have a feeling that the United Nations is irrelevant to their country’s best interests. The ever present spectre of the superpower, the U.S.A, going alone exists. It has now come full circle to how the League of Nations was in the 1930’s. For what options exist for the rest of the world to do; they have neither the military or economic options to challenge the U.S.A.

In reality, the U.S.A. has the largest military and largest economy in the world. If the United Nations has to remain relevant to this modern reality, it has to take account of this current inequity and find a way to become a balance to the awesome power of the U.S.A. The U.S.A. needs the United Nations to gather world opinion, and the United Nations needs a place to attempt to temper the U.S.A. in its actions. A change in the structure is needed to be able to have a forum for the rest of the world to discuss world issues with the U.S.A. This may mean the U.S.A. may have to come out of the Security Council to allow it to evolve into an environment for the rest of the world to produce its platform to debate with the U.S.A. The problems faced by the United Nations may be similar to those faced by the League of Nations, but the United Nations now has the example of what happened when the League of Nations failed to adapt to changing realities.

EDIT: Damn paragraphing
Also, this was only meant to be a half page assignment.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-03-06 08:55pm

Nice Essay...I've often thought if the United Nations will last for much longer...hopefully it does

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-06 09:03pm

Butterbean569 wrote:Nice Essay...I've often thought if the United Nations will last for much longer...hopefully it does

It takes, what, 60 views for someone to reply?

The UN should last, but it might just be to beurrocratic to last any more.

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-03-06 09:09pm

lol I guess everyone was left speechless by your essay

I'm American...and I personally believe we should attack Iraq....but I'm worried what this would do to the UN. If the US doesn't have to listen to the UN then maybe the other countries won't either.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-03-06 09:19pm

As I've said before the only all out oppsite to war is France, Russia wants everyone to agree and Belgium can't vote to begin with

Butterbean569 · Post by **Butterbean569** » 2003-03-06 09:25pm

What about Germany? I thought that they were as opposed as France was...maybe they're more like Russia?

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2003-03-06 10:22pm

The problem with international organizations is that countries won't join them unless the organization guarantees their right to National Sovereignty. However international organizations must also have the ability to enforce its own actions and resolutions, meaning that eventually a nation might have to give up sovereignty over its own decisions. This is the catch-22 of the UN and the League of Nations. It's very hard to find a balance between these two realities, and that's why the League of Nations failed and the UN continually struggles on the brink of irrelevance. How do you find a compromise?

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2003-03-07 01:07am

The problem with international organizations is that countries won't join them unless the organization guarantees their right to National Sovereignty. However international organizations must also have the ability to enforce its own actions and resolutions, meaning that eventually a nation might have to give up sovereignty over its own decisions. This is the catch-22 of the UN and the League of Nations. It's very hard to find a balance between these two realities, and that's why the League of Nations failed and the UN continually struggles on the brink of irrelevance. How do you find a compromise?

Thats the biggest thing that seems to be screwing things up now. This whole "Right to National Sovereignty" bullshit. Personally I say dump that idea completely and instead give them a right to "Cultural Sovereingty" or something like that. Every nation that is a member would be part of a collective much like the United States or Canada and its provinces, and they must function that way while maintaining cultural independance. I would say that is the most logical compromise.

Basically if every nation on the earth joined they would essentially be part of a UST, United States of Terra

However, we could always just trudge along the way we always have as independant "nations" making selfish claims to resources and fighting like children over superficial lines on maps. That is our so called "nature" isn't it?