March 30, 2014

U.N.O. (United Nation Organization)

Essay : [U.N.O. (United Nation Organization)]

English Essay on "U.N.O. (United Nation Organization)"

U.N.O. (United Nation Organization)

U. N .0. is an international organization of 185 member countries of the world.
The United Nations Organization came into being in 1945 after a horrible war and it represents the strong desire of humanity for peace. The United Nations charter was signed in San Francisco on 26 June, 1945. The UN is headquartered in New York city, with offices and headquarters of various agencies located around the world. The League of Nations had not been as broadly based. Some great nations kept out of it. The U.N.O, from the very beginning was composed of almost all the nations of the world. Most of those which could not join at first have now become its members.
The major objectives of the U.N.O. are the maintenance of peace, the growth. of cooperative efforts among nations and the solution of disputes by peaceful means. Members are obliged to promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The U.N.O. is based on the sovereign equality of all its members, the number of which has now risen to nearly 184. Switzerland and the two Vietnams are still not members, Indonesia resigned her membership.
Six main organs make up the U.N.O. These are the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council. The Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat, in addition to these, there are seventeen specialized agencies working in various fields. The most important of them are the ILO, the FAO, the UNESCO, and the WHO.
The U.N.O has tried its best to live up to the noble ideas contained in the preamble to its charter. This preamble is a declaration on behalf of the governments of their peoples. It expresses the determination of the members to save coming generations from the scourge of war. It recognizes that “Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that defenses of peace must be constructed. It further says that mutual ignorance and denial of democratic rights have been the cause of war in the past.( It also warns that peace based merely on economic and political foundations will not be lasting. Finally it emphasizes the need of a greater spread of culture and education for the good of humanity.
This is the basic approach of the U.N.O. to achieve its aims of international peace and the common welfare of the mankind. Let us examine how far it has succeeded.
The achievements of the U.N.O., so far have not been small. It can look back on a proud record and forward to the hope of progress, in such vital fields as disarmament and developing the peaceful uses of atomic energy.
The U.N.O has tried to prevent the outbreak of a world war on many different occasions. It stopped a war between Egypt and Britain, France and Israel over the question of Suez Canal, before this had checked the Korean War from turning into a world war. But for the intervention of the U.N.O in the Congo, that country would have become a major area of the cold war. The UIN.O also contributed to a solution of a long-standing dispute between Holland and Indonesia regarding West New Guinea, a major trouble spot in S.E. Asia. The U.N. played a significant role in earlier stages of the Indo-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. The U.N.O took timely action by calling a halt to armed hostilities between Israel and U.A.R. and other Arab countries in 1967 and again in 1973.
HamrnerskjoId, the Secretary-General of the U. N. 0. defines the U. N. 0. ‘S role: “Ours is a work of reconciliation and realistic construction. This work must be based on respect for the laws by which human civilization has been built. The existence of the U. N. 0. Depends on the small powers. The big powers only need the U. N. 0. as a rubber stamp to authenticate their decisions. When they are in the wrong they prefer to ignore the U. N. 0. completely. So the people who have the real interest in the U. N. 0. are the small powers and this is the only way in which international participation can be fulfilled.”
There are many people who are not satisfied with the working of the U. N. 0.. They point out that it is dominated by the American bloc, so it fails to work as impartially as it should have been.( Red China was given its due place after 25 years. The U. N. 0. could not resolve the Kashmir issue. It could do nothing to solve the problem of Vietnam. The Americans savagely bombarded that country. It could not prevent genocide in Bangladesh.
It has not been fairly successful in promoting peace but its great achievements have been in the field of social and economic advancement of’ developing nations.
In spite of these achievements the U. N. 0. Has not gone far in the fulfillment of its chief aim, the establishment of lasting peace. The Big Powers have made the U. N. an instrument of their policies. Some of its members have begun to think of it as an organization through which war can be waged. The armament race is out of its control. And it has not got the strength to check an aggressor. The presence of the veto in the Security Council makes it helpless if one of the Big Powers chooses to attack another.
But, in spite of all its weaknesses and failures, the world would be a much worse place without this organization. It serves a vital function. In a cold war-ridden world it provides a useful platform where agreements are sometimes reached. If the U. N. did not exist all the countries will come together to build up something like it again?
There is nothing basically wrong with the United Nations. No international organization can be fully successful if nations do not learn to cooperate and do not practice tolerance to each other. They should also be prepared to sacrifice some of their independence of action for the common good of the world. Perhaps the human race is not yet so politically mature as to realize all this. But the logic of the nuclear age is obvious. The tremendous Advances made in science have brought the nations closer together. On the other hand, science has given them the means to destroy the entire proud structure of modern civilization. The choice is now clear. Either we have an international organization to establish friendly relationships between nations or we run the risk of complete destruction. If the world is not so foolish as to choose the latter course we cannot do without the U. N. For all its drawbacks, it has in it the seeds of hope and peace. The alternative then to co-existence will be co-destruction.
Pakistan has reiterated its strong opposition to any increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, since it would serve the interests of only a few countries, and would be to the detriment of small and medium sized countries constituting an overwhelming majority of the membership of the United Nations.
Ahmad Kamal, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the United Nations, while speaking at the General Assembly on the question of equitable representation on increase in the membership of the Security Council, on 1st November 1996, Pakistan, he said remained strongly opposed to the centers of privilege with the United Nations system.( Such privileged centers were anachronistic, antidemocratic, and contrary to the spirit of sovereign equality as enshrined in the UN charter. An increase in permanent membership of the Security Council would not only strengthen the club of the aristocratic elite, but would also proportionately reduce the Chances of election of non-members to various organs of the United Nations.
Pakistan and many other countries advocated an increase in the category of non-permanent membership in order to proportionately reflect the increase that had taken place in the general membership of the United Nations.
Security Council was really to be reformed, and then the fundamental assumptions on which this institution was established in 1945 should be re-examined to see if there were still valid after 50 years and whether they would continue to be valid for next 50 years.
The situation in 1945 was after all a totally extraordinary but static one. The victors of world war 11 simply allocated to themselves permanent seats on the Security Council. In the process they created a non-democratic center of privilege, and invented the anachronistic veto. That mistake should not be repeated. Years of debates on this question had not produced any consensus, nor was one likely in any foreseeable future on an expansion in the permanent membership of the Security Council.
The reality was that the existing permanent members were not willing to accept restrictions on their power of veto, let alone to renounce it.
Many important members of the Security Council and the General Assembly were not even willing to allow forward movement on the working methods of the Security Council, as they wanted to hold any reform of the working methods hostage to a quick decision on expansion.
The reality was that, except for a few countries, most of the members of the General Assembly would be happy to see an expansion of the non-permanent category alone in the Security Council.
Six countries which had announced their candidatures for the permanent membership of the council, two of them were economic powers while the others were being perceived as no more than floor-crossers from the NAM position on centers of privilege. These aspirants of the permanent seats in the Security Council had traditionally espoused the original NAM positions but had now changed their position.
It would be better if the working group discussing this important matter, concentrated only on the expansion of the non permanent membership, and on reforming the working methods of the Security Council. This would respond to the wishes of the vast majority of member states.
An enhanced cooperation between the Security Council and the General Assembly, consultation between the Security Council members and a country which might the affected by its decisions, institutionalization of consultations between the president of the Security Council with respective chairmen of the regional groups an important issues, regular and transparent briefing on informal consultation, institutionalization of a system of consultations during the decision making process on the establishment, the conduct and termination of peace keeping operations, a greater involvement of the general membership in the decision making process of the council, provisions for the prompt convening of the formal meetings of the Security Council at the request of a member state and a review of the veto powers of the permanent members.
Mercifully the crisis that had gripped the United Nations since last month is over. The world body has managed to agree on a new secretary general. He is Kofi Aman from Ghana who was sworn in on 17th December 1996 of course, the way the succession issue was mismanaged in the Security Council has left a bad taste in the mouth.’ The United States blatant resort to the veto to deny Mr. Boutros-Boutras Ghali a second term smacked of big power arrangenCe. It was a case of one superpower against the whole world community. But that is how it was in view of the UN charter requirement of unanimity of vote of the permanent members in the election of the secretary general.
Mr. Annan, however, has been allowed to start on a Sound footing. He is from Sub-Soharan Africa and has the total backing of the Africans, who were naturally resentful of the American Opposition to Mr. Ghali. He also managed to get the French to drop its threat of a veto to any candidate not from francophone Africa. To reassure France, Mr. Annan wisely delivered part of his acceptance speech in French. He has also spoken about marketing for a consensus which is essential if the world body is to work effectively and produce results.
The election episode has, however, left many feeling skeptical about the future of the United Nations. In the cold war era, the world body faced the problem of being reduced to paralysis when the two superpowers disagreed or were locked in confrontation, A clever secretary general could use his skill to steer the organization between the two giants and maintain a delicate balance. That situation has since changed dramatically. As a result, the chief executive of the UN finds it difficult to use one power as a Counterweight to the other. The danger is that he might be either required to submit to the authority of the only surviving superpower or, in case of a confrontation lose his job. This is precisely what has happened with Mr. Ghali. Initially be was regarded as American’s man. When he started asserting his independence, Washington saw to it that he was sent home.
Mr. Annan’s task is not going to be easy either. He has spoken of consensus and healing. But the US domination of the UN. Mr. Annan has premised to play an independent roIe, The world will watch with interest. One thing is certain. If the UN is to survived into the twenty first century, a lot will depend on the performance of the new secretary general and the elbow room be manages to get for the purpose.
While expressing her views, under the title “A stronger UN is our only hope”, Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto former prime minister of Pakistan said in an article published in daily Dawn on 28th December 96 issue, that “when the Berlin Wall fell and American President George Bush heralded a “new world order”, the further of United Nations seemed bright. A world in which the strong would protect the weak, the rule of law would prevail in international affairs and the United Nations would be implemented seemed within reach. For a short while, the world did make astonishing progress in dealing with such intractable regional conflicts as Cambodia, EL Salvador. Nicaragua, Angola, Nambibia and South Africa. But our optimism proud to be short lived, as events in places like Somalia and Bosnia took the luster off the New World order.
The real problem with the United Nations today is the absence of a coherent policy on peace keeping. Vague mandates and insufficient resources have exposed the organization to criticism that has overshadowed the United Nations commendable work in other areas.
What we need is the fundamental understanding of the nature of the days conflicts. The large clashes between superpowers have been replaced by small but numerous unrelated disturbances all over the world. Afghanistan, Burundi, Haiti, Liberia, Somalia and Bosnia are just a few.
In 1995 alone, the world witnessed a record 18 peacekeeping missions involving over 78,000 troops in both external and internal conflicts. And a majority of these situations were all the more difficult because of the lack of commitment from the major powers.
Pakistan through its involvement in Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia, has learned a great deal about how to handle peace keeping operations. If I could put my finger on the most essential part of a successful mission, it would be the presence of’ a standby force at the disposal of the local commander, which could react to developing problems with decisiveness.( But conflict between armed forces is not the only problem that the countries of the world must overcome. An organization like the United Nations is essential to control such budding crises as nuclear proliferation, narcotics trafficking, killer diseases and terrorism. All those problems don’t recognize the sanctity of international borders - they must be dealt with in cooperation.
We must also learn to control the spread of ethnic violence, as a disturbance in one country automatically affects the whole region in the form of refugees. The recent situation in Zaire is but an example of this trend. Currently, there 27 million refugees in the - if the United Nations were not there to look after the victims of genocide and racial warfare, who would?
The challengers we face are not insurmountable. When we overcome any obstacle if we work together through a strengthened and reformed United Nations. Canadian Foreign Minister Lester B. Pearson put it best when he said, “Are we to go from crisis W crisis improvising in haste? Or can we now pool our experience and our resource, so that the next time we - the governments and peoples the United Nations represents - will be ready and prepared to act.”
I strongly believe in the dream of a cooperative brotherhood of nations, and I draw inspiration from the guiding principles of Pakistan’s founding father, Mohammad All Jinnah. He said, “Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material support to the oppressed and suppressed people of the world and in upholding the principles of the UN charter”.
Pakistan has the unique of contribution forces to all (he peacemaking operations from Congo in 1960 to the on going involvement in Bosnia. The road has not always been easy, as we paid a heavy price when our troops were ambushed and killed in Somalia.
Pakistanis were not the only ones to shed blood in Somalia, however - Americans lost their lives, as well. And although our losses may be discouraging, we must not think these sacrifices in the name of world peace would be in vain.
The United States vetoed the re-election bid of Boutros Ghali on the grounds that the United Nations Chief did not bring reforms. But there was not mention of the fact that the United States owed and still owes huge amount of dues to the world body.
1996 year was the year when the United Nations’ vulnerability became more apparent than ever before. And this did not portend well for mankind. The fragile UN found itself unable to cope with the post call-war pattern of inter-state equations. Thus the bloodletting in central Africa, Afghanistan and Kashmir continued unabated, the peace process in the Middle East survived only in the name as the hot-heads on either side took recourse to extremism and there was, a revival of the guerrilla movements in South America. The U.N which had on previous occasions, intervened in domestic conflicts too to enforce peace, found itself paralyzed. The much mooted talk of reforming the world body yielded no tangible results. IN fact, the election of the Secretary General which found the US arrayed against the whole world was indicative of how continuous the reform process can be. In that year (1996) United Nations was able to announce bans on Chemical weapons, land mines and nuclear testing.
Japan, which hopes to became a permanent member of the UN Security Council took a seat on 1st January 1997 as a non-permanent member and retorting president committed to promoting world peace and security. Japan is the second largest contributor to the UN budget after the United States. Like Germany, it is seeking to close the book on World War II and join the council as a permanent member. Besides Japan, four other countries were elected by the General Assembly on October 21, 1996 to sit on the Security Council for two years as non-permanent members - Costa Rica, Kenya, Portugal and Sweden. While Japan contributes 15.5 percent of the UN budget - around 400 million dollars a year.
The Security Council is the UN’s highest decision making body. It consists of 15 members, five of which - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are permanent and have veto power.

No comments:

Post a Comment