Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Why
has thus far no World War Three broken out? And what has been done to assure us
citizens, that there will be no major wars that threaten our security in the
future? Since 1945, the United Nations Security Council has played the most
essential role in the world of politics for maintaining peace between States
and holding security worldwide. And despite all the nuclear weapons that exist
today and the strength that they combine together; which could destroy this
entire planet. The main reason why countries do not go to war with each other
is, due to the fact that the damages which nuclear weapons could cause today
are too enormous for anyone to withstand; so countries know that if they want
to go to war with each other, it would most likely resort to a cold war instead,
as history has already showed us from 1947-91 between the United States and the
USSR. Due to such as events, the effectiveness of the United Nations has often
been questioned, and many argue that a lot more could have been done when we
look at what happened in the past in countries such as Rwanda, former
Yugoslavia and Somalia and also the responsiveness and aid that the UN has
brought, if any. The UN clearly has had some difficulties with remaining
neutral when operating, dealing with and trying to reach settlements within or
between countries. Today the only thing that could come between the United
Nations agreements amongst 193 countries, would be if an extremely unstable, in
this case both right-wing leaders such as North Koreas Kim Jong Un or Americas
Donald Trump would want to start a war with each other, but it is not likely
that this could actually happen. Many people still believe that terrorism has possibly
emerged from globalization and that it also poses an extensive threat to
international security. NGO’s such as Al Qaeda and Isis use violence to
intimidate humans and spread fear within counties, specifically targeting
innocent people that they consider enemies. In the following passages I will
discuss if it would be possible that a war breaks out soon, what
security-related organisations and establishments are doing to prevent this
from happening and what todays citizens fear most when it comes to war.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                       
As Barkawi
mentions in The Globalization of World
Politics: ‘War is one of the oldest and most common form of international
relations.’ This implies that the possibility of war is a constant feature of
world politics, because conflict (and sometimes violence) is rooted in our
human nature; humans have used war since the beginning and across centuries to
bring about change regarding territory, resources, religion, independence and
any other political matter that comes to mind. This is what Tarak Barkawi has
to say on globalisation and war: ‘In and through war, people on both sides come
to intensified awareness of one another, reconstruct images of self and other,
initiate and react to each other’s moves. To be at war is to be interconnected
with the enemy. Such connections involve social process and transformation that
should be understood under the rubric of globalisation… From a war and society
perspective, war can be seen as an occasion for interconnection, as a form of
circulation between combatant parties. In and through war, societies are
transformed, while at the same time societies shape the nature of war’. All of
this can be confirmed even when we look at the history of how world peace as we
know it today actually came to be. Living in the world today is safer than ever
before, and this thanks to the peace treaties emerging from: The First World
War, which eventually resulted in the formation of the League of Nations in
1920, and then The Second World War which brought about the United Nations with
its newly established Security Council in 1945. The League of Nations was the
predecessor, and essential for the founding of the United Nations; The UN
Charter got rid of all the mistakes of the League, but the main idea and
purpose remained the same; such that they wanted to keep a similar structure
and place it into a more practical appliance for the prevention of war. Without
these two major wars, which resulted in an estimate of 80-100 million deaths
combined and included divisions within and across nations and brought about or
led to malnutrition, epidemics and mental disorders such as shellshock; there
would not be world peace as we know it today. We could argue that without these
wars, the agreements and settlements which needed to be done after the war,
would otherwise not have been refined to such an extent that not another world
war would break out; which means that maybe we would have to live in greater
fear, because countries would still be more territorial or they would not have
been satisfied with the handling of other treaty agreements and violations.
Even if there would be something similar to the United Nations, it would not
have the same set of rules. This would be a huge problem, because the League
was the first attempt and it was not good enough at maintaining global peace,
which can be proven with the onset of World War Two. So how can we know that
any other peace agreement would be as effective as the United Nations has been
up until this day. After the war it was globally recognised that such terrible atrocities
may never ever happen again, especially when we take into account the immense
power nuclear weapons of today have. It would be possible to blow up the whole
world, as they are extremely deadly and their ranges of tearing apart areas
have expanded.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

It
is extremely important to all world politicians and all members of the United
Nations that another world war cannot happen and as Curtis and Taylor mentioned
in The Globalization of World Politics:
‘There has not been a Third World War since the creation of the UN. Despite the
fact that many countries have disagreements and possess large weapons arsenals,
these conflicts have not escalated into another world war’. This argument can
be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the United Nations, seeing as many
people still believe that it does not deserve the honour and title for always
standing for the maintenance of peace and security, nonetheless it has still
succeeded in preventing the onset of any potential world war. Another reason as
to why there has not been any other war between two major powers, is because of
the endeavours of the Cold War and what it has taught us. It is a perfect example
that illustrates the fear of actually going to war, rather it was espionage and
secretly expanding their empire of weapons and military and then the other
state passive-aggressively doing the same; the war was to be understood in a
more metaphorical than literal sense and has also set the tone for other
countries in the world and time ahead. As the USA and now Russia still remain two
of the most powerful countries in the world, smaller nations are already scared
away and want to be sure to have alliances with each other in order to protect
and defend themselves if there would ever be a threat of a nuclear war. The onset of the Cold War already
put the UN under a lot of pressure, because it meant that two of its major
powers could not find any agreements and went head on against each other. The worst
part was that each could veto any of the UN resolutions; in a way it is
contradictory that the UN stands for peacekeeping, but it cannot take direct action
in affected areas, because it firstly follows a non-intervention policy.

Another major issue that the UN
faces is that it cannot tackle inter-state conflicts (Strategies of Peace), meaning when a civil war breaks out the UN is
not allowed to intervene and must let the state mange things on its own. This is
issue has come to light, especially after the Cold War and in the 1990’s when
the UN was unable to keep peace in Somalia, Rwanda because they had disregarded
the mission to stop the civil war and completely failed the countries. And
similar in the civil war in Bosnia where eventually the NATO had to take over.
The
New World of UN Peace Operations: Learning to Build Peace teaches us that this shed bad
light on the UN and in the 90’s as many lost their hope in the organisation and
some even argue that the West had turned away from the UN. This meant that the
UN has to prove itself again and show the world what it really stood for. Over
the next few year peacekeeping organisations had to go under a reinvention and
started to grow in regards of budget, personnel and complexity. This could also
be a reason why there is peace as we know it today, because over many years so
much has been invested into this whole process and world politics has realised how
we need to include as many countries as possible and also the importance of
investing in such matters if we want to live in peace and harmony and have good
enough security for everybody.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source:

‘Essential shifts’ needed for UN to tackle new peacekeeping challenges, report reveals

 

Some
argue that Security-related global governance has successfully managed to
reduce war conflict and this can be seen with the UN missions in Namibia, El
Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and Eastern Slavonia (Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations). From
Security Studies we can infer that security
plays a vital role in world politics, because in affects us in so many aspects
in our life which people in the West sometimes do not acknowledge or take for
granted, compared to those living in less economically developed countries. The
book also explains that security keeps us safe from killings, starvation,
torture, rape, impoverishment, imprisonment, denied education and healthcare. Strategies of Peace remarks that the UN
manages to help the countries mentioned above in numerous ways. Firstly it aids
countries as a peacemaker and keeper by enabling a peace treaty to them. It
also helps to monitor the cantonment and disbandment of military forces, it
helps the refugees find new homes and resettles them in a safe area and it administers
provisional citizen establishments. In extreme cases the UN has the
responsibility of putting human rights into place, there where they are not
present. Sometimes the UN even has to help countries with national democratic
elections and economic reintegration. Moreover the UN is a peace enforcer when
the agreements cannot be settled.

 

The
United Nations mainly gains its strengths from the Security Council. The five
major powers are permanent members of the Security Council, which was not the
case in the League of Nations. However some may argue that having 5 major
powers is actually a weakness when it comes to making the best decisions, but
for others it guides as an inspiration to convince other states to join the strongest
forces in the world (Sanctions: Do they
work?). Countries such as Germany, Nigeria, Japan, South Africa, Brazil,
India, and Egypt would also like to be represented under the permanent members,
and some people argue that the current five permanent members (Russia, USA, China,
Great Britain and France) do not accurately represent the most powerful
countries in the world of politics today. The developing countries listed above
are growing vastly, but many people also argue that there would be a lot of jealousy,
if only one country would be allowed in while neglecting the others. That could
be the main reason why the UN does not want to change such policies in the next
few years ahead (The Globalization of
World Politics). But as a result of joining the UN one would feel more
protected from conflict and of course there is also sense of interconnectedness
to the rest of the world. The General Framework
Governing the Process of Delegation by the UN Chapter VII Powers talks
about how important the role of the Security Council actually is and how it was
agreed in by the UN Member States in Article 24 of the Charter. It is the
responsibility of the Security Council to regulate whether there are any
dangers that could be a harm to international security and world peace. The
members of the Security Council also have the authority to take actions against
such threats, including using temporary means against any state or country by
putting military and economic sanction into place; which essentially makes it a
lot harder for the given state or country to practice its power upon others. It
is also in the Security Council’s power to make these political decisions and
to decide when specific measures need to be taken against a state. And it is
also in their duty to determine what exactly needs to be done to stop these
events from happening and maintaining peace. Franck’s point is ‘the legitimacy
of the exercise of power by the Security Council depends upon the public
perception that is being exercised in accordance with the Charter’s applicable defining
rules and standards’. The reason why the Council cannot use force directly, is
because the Security Council does not own such a power in the first place and
secondly the delegated Chapter VII powers operates in accordance with general
authority and control in regards to the Security Council. Even though the
Article 46 and 47 of the Charter grant the Security Council overall command and
authority to decide over the UN military forces, such as where and when to send
in troops. The Article 44 of the Charter does not enable the Security Council
with the authority to have access to a total war; so that Member States initiate
military action and use foe only with their own armies. So before the Security
Council is to use any military action, they have to first invite whichever
state they require for troops, so the states interests can also be taken into
consideration. An important quote in relation to this is by the Delegate of The
Netherlands at the San Francisco Conference ‘no military action without
representation’. Meaning that the state of the troops that are being used, has
a right to be informed about how the troops will be set to use and under what
considerations and circumstances. The Council can also not delegate to Member
States this is because the Security Council must at all times hold overall
authority and control over the exercise of its delegate Chapter VII power;
which is part of a collective security effort and therefore the council should
exercise overall authority and control over the use of its Chapter VII power to
ensure that it is in accord with the interests of the United Nations.

 

(Source:
http://www.providingforpeacekeeping.org/peacekeeping-data-graphs/)

From
this graph we can infer that a lot more money is being invested and dumped into
the training and recruiting of UN peacekeeping troops especially in Africa and
Asia. There has been a major rise when it comes to offering police and military
work to the UN by sending in troops to wherever needed. The positive effect
this suggests is that more and more countries are getting involved and it shows
that the UN is not only controlled and centred around Western States. Another
thing the graph implies, is that Europe is sending in less troops and police
over the years, but this could also have to do that most of the recent
conflicts occurred in Africa and Asia and that these two continents basically
supply soldiers for their own or nearby regions.

 

Even
though we have the UN to rely on that no major powers will go to war with each
other, some may argue we have a new enemy. Terrorist groups, even though they
are NGO, have emerged due to globalization and the easy recruitment of soldiers
through social media. This goes to show that we still have to live in fear of
another war to an extent. There is a fear of groups such as Isis and Al Qaeda.
They misuse the internet and social media for its benefits and instead cause a
heatwave of fear amongst people throughout the world through intimidation. They
use pictures and videos of chopped off heads and they take thousands of people
hostage and use them as slaves or sex workers. They kill, torture and mistreat
people. They tear apart families and use bombs and explosives especially in
major western cities abroad. But most political leaders do not take such
violence personal or serious, because they believe violence to be a last resort
and only to be used when all else fails. When we look at Isis we see that they
advertise their ideology online and try to reach as many people as possible to
either join them on their mission as soldiers or merely donators and supporters.
Many of whom are young men sometimes even coming from Britain, France and other
Western countries. These people feel inspired by Isis’ message and leave their
homes to travel to such conflicted areas and often being proud of their
achievements. Is the Isis a threat to humanity? That all depends on their power
and resources. But who would know what the Isis would do if they had as much
power as they dreamed of. However, many argue that the Isis does not pose a
great to humans as they often claim. This could also be because the Isis is
quick to claim attacks as their own, even though they were committed by someone
with different or unknown intentions. This just shows how keen they are on
getting their point across and frightening people, in order to uphold their
gruesome ideologies. And also, if the Isis was such a great threat, the UN would
decide to get more involved and do more about them.

 

As
we know Donald Trump has been vocal about his hate towards of Islamic terrorist
and that he would do anything to keep them out of ‘his’ country.

 

To conclude

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Glenda!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out