Of course these are just a few tribulations that the UN is encountering. Over all the UN is an outstanding organization. The UN has become an achievement of these modern times. Example of the UN in its laurels is in late 1998, there were 16 operations deploying about 14,347 UN military and civilian police personnel. The number of personnel was down considerably from the peak of 80,000 reached in 1993. At that time, of 14 operations, 3 (in Cambodia, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia) accounted for some 63,000 uniformed personnel, or 80 per cent of the total. In contrast, the number of operations has remained relatively steady over a number of years, varying between 14 and 17 at any one time. These include several long running operations, such as those in Cyprus and in Jammu and Kashmir, whose presence is seen as essential despite the seemingly intractable nature of the conflicts. In 1998, new operations were established in the Central African Republic and in Sierra Leone. The number of countries volunteering uniformed personnel has also remained steady at about 75. In total, 118 countries have provided military and civilian police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations. UN peacekeepers increasingly support peace efforts and help alleviate suffering in civil wars and ethnic conflicts. UN peacekeepers increasingly cooperate with other partners, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations, in their efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. UN peacekeeping continues to play a crucial role in helping the international community resolve conflict. It remains the pre-eminent symbol of international cooperation and a catalyst for peaceful settlement of disputes today. Some say unlike its predecessor the League; the UN has made positive strides. There are obvious differences between the two. Yet, there are some similarities.
Some similarities between the two organizations is their goals and objectives:
1. They both want to maintain international peace and security, and to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to that peace. Also to suppress any acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. Or to try and bring about by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and internal law, adjustment or settlement of international dispute situations which might lead to a breach of peace.
2. They both want to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving internal problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. And yet neither of them has really achieved these objectives.
4. Another similarity is its structure. This is not to say that the UN and the League have the same organizational structure, on the contrary, it is stating that UN has structural problems similar to that of the League. The League had problems adapting to the World around it the turmoil etc. An example is they had an organization that they thought would work if they had a Security Council that gave sanctions. However, what they failed to realize was that the sanctions were based on the thought that states would listen to the council. The UN has trouble adapting to the world around it too. It believes that it can take some of the powers away from the Sate sovereignty by using force and intervention. What it fails to realize just like the League did is that states are going to want their independence without the interference of any foreign involvement.
The Difference in the two organizations was also apparent. For instance, Procedural application of plans was a different between the League and the UN. The UN was set up with an organizational structure in mind, while the League was set up like collection of governments. This is to say that the League was simply a group of individuals looking out for peace but with there own agendas in mind. Enforcement Power is yet another key difference between The League and the UN. League did not have enforcement power where as the UN does. This is because of the critical addition of US to the UN. Most of the UN?s enforcement power comes from the US. In that however some States see the US as a world policeman. Even though the US is not the only county that donates its troops. Another major difference between the UN and the League is the expanded role of the secretariat and the Sectary Generals Office. The secretariat has made various advances since its creation in the League. The League the secretariat did not have direct access to the public in all the countries in the world. Now, with help of the media public access is possible for the UN. The position between both organizations is yet another difference between them. The UN position of ??secretary General, Unlike it?s predecessor in the League, was explicitly empowered to bring the organization?s Attention to any matter witch might endanger peace and security .? the League position of Secretary General did not empower it to do anything.
These changes have caused an effect to the growing membership to the UN counsel. By the late 1950s the UN was being revolutionized by a change in membership. Since then the UN has been a steadily growing. But new membership was shortly blocked by East-West rivalry . Each side was antagonistic to admission of new members unfavorable to its views, and as non-Communist countries outnumbered Communist ones. The USSR was especially intransigent, from 1947 to 1955 only Yemen (1947), Pakistan (1947), Myanmar (1948), Israel (1949), and Indonesia (1950) gained admission. The way to a compromise was led by Canada in 1955; 16 new members were admitted in that year, and thereafter expansion was rapid.
Having analyzed and looked at the Histories and objectives of both organizations as well as the effect of the switch. Is there a link? Yes there is. The evidence is overwhelming to show that one can safely deduct that the UN is indeed an extension of the League. They have similarities as well as differences the UN has enforcement power that League dose not. The League secretariat doses not have the same power as that it successor. The League has that same goals and objectives as the UN. For instance trying to preserve and maintain peace etc. They way that both organization were constructed was different. That is to say the thought process behind that creation of the League was different from the thought process from the creation of the UN. And the structure and achievement were different, but considering the time in which the League was created it was not entirely to blame for demise. However, the key factors that links these two organizations is the need. There was a need for renovation after the World War II, the need for more peace, the need for enforcement power, the need for change. Now does this mean that when that UN dose not satisfy the needs of the world at this time there will be a change? Maybe, that is another question entirely. However, the evidence will show that even down to the structure of the office positions in the UN, there is a direct link taken undeviatingly from the League. Thus the UN is indeed a direct extension of the League.
5f0
- Hinsley, F.H. Power and Pursuit of Peace. The University Press: Cambridge 1963.
- Meisler, Stanley. United Nations-The First Fifty Years. The Atlanta Monthly Press: New York 1995.
- Anonymous, Netscape.com, An Oral History Account of the Founding of the United Nations. http//:www.yale.edu/?no/oral_histrory.html (Sept. 2000)
- Anonymous, Hotbot.com, The Basic Facts About the United Nations,
http//: www.hotbot .com/history/ facts/UN. html.
(May, 2000)
- Anonymous, Hotbot.com, The Basic Facts about the League of nation Nations,
http//: www.hotbot .com/history/ facts/league. html.
(May, 1999)