2008 Woodie Awards
Is There A Need For the United Nations?
Jean Bernard Chery
Issue date: 4/21/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Victors of the First World War met at Versailles in 1919 to give birth to the League of Nations with the adaptation to the Treaty of Versailles.
The goals of the new organization were the promotion of international cooperation and the achievement of peace and security. But the outbreak of the Second World War exposed the failure of the League to fulfill its goals and led to its demise and the creation of its replacement: the United Nations.
The United Nations has achieved considerable progress over the years in the areas of "human rights, economic development, de-colonisation, health and education, for example, and interesting itself in refugees and trade."
As one writer suggests, "The founders of the UN had high hopes that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible. Those hopes have obviously not fully come to pass," when considering all conflicts and wars that took place since its creation
With the demise of the Soviet Unions and the emergence of the United States as the world unique superpower in all aspects of the term, many start to question the need for an organization like the United Nations.
The end of the Cold War changes the role of the United Nations from preventing another bloody world war to promoting democracy.
However, the catch in this new or supplementary mission is the absolute authority of nations such as United States, Canada, Great Britain, etc., to force the United Nations to forgo its mission in order to insure its continuity.
In this case, I hate to admit that those who question the U.N. existence have a valid point.
Everyone knows that the U.N. is presumably a great supporter of democracy around the world, but when taking into consideration some recent cases, the U.N. is very selective in supporting democracy around the world.
For Instance, the U.N. will not criticize its most important donors for violating the rule of democracy in some countries.
The goals of the new organization were the promotion of international cooperation and the achievement of peace and security. But the outbreak of the Second World War exposed the failure of the League to fulfill its goals and led to its demise and the creation of its replacement: the United Nations.
The United Nations has achieved considerable progress over the years in the areas of "human rights, economic development, de-colonisation, health and education, for example, and interesting itself in refugees and trade."
As one writer suggests, "The founders of the UN had high hopes that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible. Those hopes have obviously not fully come to pass," when considering all conflicts and wars that took place since its creation
With the demise of the Soviet Unions and the emergence of the United States as the world unique superpower in all aspects of the term, many start to question the need for an organization like the United Nations.
The end of the Cold War changes the role of the United Nations from preventing another bloody world war to promoting democracy.
However, the catch in this new or supplementary mission is the absolute authority of nations such as United States, Canada, Great Britain, etc., to force the United Nations to forgo its mission in order to insure its continuity.
In this case, I hate to admit that those who question the U.N. existence have a valid point.
Everyone knows that the U.N. is presumably a great supporter of democracy around the world, but when taking into consideration some recent cases, the U.N. is very selective in supporting democracy around the world.
For Instance, the U.N. will not criticize its most important donors for violating the rule of democracy in some countries.
Be the first to comment on this story