Should UN Use Military Intervention To Resolve Conflicts In Warring Countries?
There are certain circumstances which sometimes call for the use of military force to prevent or to resolve major conflicts between two warring Countries.
True "you don't feed your enemies while you are in a war with them. You don't provide electricity and fuel so they can continue to fight". This was once said by an African head of State.
In war people die and if the WINNER takes ALL - No qualms.
However, in a situation where the warring parties are neighbors, unless the winning side exterminates [an unlikely scenario] the losers there would be more wars. Losers will re-group with new and better strategies and come back, lose or win.
It is therefore imperative that some accommodation is taken into account. Some Give and Take is quite necessary.
You win some, Lose some! In case this approach brings peace - Go for it.
However, the Laws under which UN operates do not give the body both power and legitimacy to intervene directly into two warring states unless invited by one or the two states and at the same time sanctioned by the Security Council.
As a last resort the UN body intervenes militarily once sanctioned by the Security Council.
Be that as it may, the UN body serves as conduit through which disputes are ventilated and thus acting as shock absorbers.
This gives parties a chance to have their claims reviewed by an independent third party.
In fact the current main objective of UN is prevention and resolution of conflicts. This was emphasised by Mr Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, in a speech at a UN Security Council on Wdnesday April 16, 2008 when he urged UN and the African union (AU) to make prevention and resolution of conflicts their top priority.
If one were to decide between the existence of United Nations and no such a body,then obviously the existence of UN would be desirable.
Alexander Mogambi
seekriches.net
True "you don't feed your enemies while you are in a war with them. You don't provide electricity and fuel so they can continue to fight". This was once said by an African head of State.
In war people die and if the WINNER takes ALL - No qualms.
However, in a situation where the warring parties are neighbors, unless the winning side exterminates [an unlikely scenario] the losers there would be more wars. Losers will re-group with new and better strategies and come back, lose or win.
It is therefore imperative that some accommodation is taken into account. Some Give and Take is quite necessary.
You win some, Lose some! In case this approach brings peace - Go for it.
Role of United Nations
The question of United Nations is very complex. It was established in 1948 to, among other objectives, deter world wars thru dialogue, dispute resolution and where necessary military intervention.However, the Laws under which UN operates do not give the body both power and legitimacy to intervene directly into two warring states unless invited by one or the two states and at the same time sanctioned by the Security Council.
As a last resort the UN body intervenes militarily once sanctioned by the Security Council.
Be that as it may, the UN body serves as conduit through which disputes are ventilated and thus acting as shock absorbers.
This gives parties a chance to have their claims reviewed by an independent third party.
In fact the current main objective of UN is prevention and resolution of conflicts. This was emphasised by Mr Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary-General, in a speech at a UN Security Council on Wdnesday April 16, 2008 when he urged UN and the African union (AU) to make prevention and resolution of conflicts their top priority.
If one were to decide between the existence of United Nations and no such a body,then obviously the existence of UN would be desirable.
Alexander Mogambi
seekriches.net
Labels: UN conflict intervention
posted by Dr alexander mogambi at
3:43 AM
|
1 Comments
