This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

How the role of the UN and the US as the World's Police Officers is worsening wars

edited May 2007 in Politics
The UN and the united states place in the world today is worsening many conflicts worldwide. Part of this stems from the desire to maintain the status quo. The status quo was created by the fallout of European imperialism and the second world war, and has been maintained at that level though the cold war and into the present.

Many countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East exist today as a result of old European colonial borders. They contain many disparate groups of people who have no desire to be viewed as one group; many of these groups have shared antipathy towards each other which is amplified by being forced to live together. Many of the conflicts might be mitigated, or at least confined to military engagements as opposed to the slaughter of civilians, if they were allowed to form countries themselves. At this point this will not be easy as no one wants to give up land and those in charge in these countries, who have UN backing to put down any "insurrections", will not want to leave power. Nevertheless, the continued enforcement of borders leads in many cases to heavy and often brutal repression of the minority groups (or in a few cases the poor majority by the rich and power wielding minority).

The UN, in it's drive to promote peace, can also make the situation worse or hold it in place. Israel is an example. Hessabolah includes UN intervention in it's plans when it initiates attacks. They do as much damage as possible and then when Israel retaliates, they run to the UN citing Israeli brutality (allot of which they stage or commit themselves and then blame on Israel) and ask for help. The UN stops the war, chastises both sides, Israel backs down under pressure to look good internationally, and then Hessabolah re-arms and does it again. This has happened many times. By continually enforcing ceasefires, the UN has prolonged and worsened the war. If Israel and Hessabolah were allowed to fight to a conclusion, then that would be the end of it, but because there is no closure, and at least one side will not accept any outcome other than victory so long as they have a fall back, the UN cannot help.

It is all well and good to step in the first time and try to solve things, and the UN is quite successful many times in doing this, but there comes a point when you have to step back and allow the unfortunate events to play out, otherwise the issues will never be resolved and the cycle of war will continue.

This does not include genocide situations; in that case steps should be taken rapidly and effectively to end the killing, possibly by separation if the people cannot make amends (see above).

Comments

  • The UN is a problem, I can agree with that. I also consider it a necessary evil.
  • Like I said, the UN does good work too. They stop genocides and they are able to keep some conflicts from becoming wars or help settle others. The problem is that they don't stop suing for peace at all costs, they just keep trying even when it would be better to let them fight a war and get it over with.

    What the UN does in those cases is like Europe ignoring the first actions by Germany at the beginning of WW2. It made peace for a while but ultimately doesn't stop the war. Imagine if someone had gotten in between the Allies and the Axis every couple of weeks of the war and made them stop fighting and talk for a bit. Both sides would have rearmed and sent fresh troops to the front, they would have produced advanced weaponry and sent it forward, and they would have just gone at it again, and there would have been even more losses in the end (This isn't even counting how many more people would have died in the Holocaust, although that should be where the UN gets everyone together and beats down the Axis under my above genocide exception).
Sign In or Register to comment.