answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

All wars eventually lead to peace - to sobering up of belligerent rhetorics and to realization that prevention is better than reconstruction.

It is such post-war sobering up that lead to the establishment of the League of Nations after World War I, and of it's successor the United Nations Organization after World War II.

The purpose of these organizations was prevention of wars.

As we know the League of Nations had failed in that task. And the UN is now passing a test, of whether it can be an effective instrument of peace.

So far, the UN has been unable to prevent regional wars, which have been going on all the time up to the present day, but there was no World War III.

Was this due to the UN? Or was it due to the Cold War Balance of Power between the two Power Blocks lead by the two rival super-powers?

The Balance of Power was certainly the material force behind the peace. But the UN did play the role of a meeting place where the super-powers could talk to each other when the things were getting too hot.

At one of such meetings a super-power leader had to take of his shoe and bang it on the table to put his point across. But shoe-bangings were preferable to bombings - and World War III has been averted.

But can the UN still prevent a global war now, when the military Balance of Power is no longer there?

The Bush administration are seeking to formulate new principles for world government, which will be effectively performed by the United States, as the world's most powerful nation. These principles are stated in the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Report (September 2002).

How does this new American Strategy affect the role of the UN?

The NSS document shows that the US administration still think along the old Cold War lines, with the Specter of Global Communism being replaced with a Specter of Global Terrorism. They see the American National Interest as the sole criterion of Right and Wrong and themselves as an unchallenged World Ruler rewarding his friends and preemptively exterminating his enemies, as, when and how he pleases.

It is difficult to see how in such world order the UN can play any role, except as a rubber stamp of approval of anything the US administration might wish to undertake.

It is also difficult to see how such one-nation-state world domination can bring to Mankind security and peace.

The war against Afghanistan was not a pre-meditated operation. It was an impulsive reaction to the events of the 9/11. Each step of this war was undertaken as a reaction to the situation on the ground. The steps were justified after being taken. The aim of that war was to catch or kill Osama bin Laden with minimal American casualties. This aim has not been achieved. But the side effects were a "regime change" and the devastation of Afghanistan, neither of which was originally intended. Nor did they envisage the prospect of "nation building" with which they are now faced.

The war against Iraq is the first deliberate and pre-meditated step in implementation of the US strategy. And the UN has already become an obstacle to the US administration. The US did not object to using the UN as a rubber stamp legitimizing their war, but now the Europeans (France, Germany and Russia) want to use the UN for its intended purpose, as an instrument of preventing wars, rather than of legitimizing wars.

The need to keep word peace, and the threat to it posed by the new US strategy, are pushing the UN towards becoming an effective means of World Government - of resolution of conflicts between nations on the basis of justice and of maintenance of international Law and Order. This is a greater challenge than being a mere talking shop, where potential conflicts were diffused by the national leaders banging their shoes on the table, as in the Cold War days.

These are the first tentative steps to the new World Order based on rule of law. It is still a long way to go. But this is the right way to go. The US administration needs to come to terms with this new order and to learn to play an active and constructive part in it. This is the way to world peace and security, not the thuggery of wars andpolitics.

BY : S.M WARDAK

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: The relevance of united nation in the present time?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Why did chief justice warren and justice frankfurter want added time to the supreme court to decide on brown v board of education?

To present a united decision to the nation


Why did justice frankfurter want added time for the supreme court to decide on brown v board of education?

He wanted to present a united decision to the nation


Why did justice frankfurter added time for the supreme court to decide on brown v board of education?

They wanted to present a united decision to the nation.


What are the relevance of technical writing in your present world?

The relevance of technical writing in your present world can vary depending on your profession. Technical writing is important in industrial fields when pitching new ideas. It can help consumers save money and time.


Why did the chief justice warren and justice frankfurter want added time for the supreme court to decide on brown v board of education?

Answer this question… They wanted to present a united decision to the nation.


Who has they best Navy?

At the present time the United States has the best Navy.


Present time in united Arab emirates?

depends on what country you are in at the moment!


Where is globalization now?

The nation of India has a lot of globalization going on at the present time (fall of 2012).


Who was in the war with the Mexican and U.S. war?

Mexico, the United States, and Texas (which was an independent nation at the time).


How many political parties were present in the united state at the time the Constitution was written?

4


When did the US government take effect?

The same time the nation of the United States of America was created, in 1776...


What is dear mr president about?

how the at-the-time-present (George Bush) PM of America was so awful and didn't understand the nation.