United Nations, The Best Institution Ever Created by Man

History have seen many alliances, many confederations, and many coalitions for many political purposes. Such as the League of Nations to prevent another World War, NATO to prevent spread of Communism, European Union to prevent European economic collapse, Peloponnesian League to prevent Persian invasion, Holy League to prevent Islam invasions. But none as great and awesome as the United Nations. There is WHO, the World Health Organization, which combats global diseases, there is UN Security Council that addresses global wars, there is the UN Declaration of Human Rights that proclaims the standard for general human liberties and rights, there’s the HNCHR that deals with refugee problems, DESA that address global economic and social affairs, etc. The United Nations is the single greatest achievement in international collaboration. No other organizations or corporations have the resources nor the logistics to do the amount of good the United Nations does.

Many correspondents would argue that the United Nation is all name no power. Take for example, the number of useless members in the United Nations Security Council: Chad, Chile, Jordan, Nigeria, etc. they are barely even a development nation let alone be considered be a regional power. For if either China or Russia decides to veto a military action from being passed, the entire UN cannot do a thing about it such as the wars in Syria, in Iraq, or about North Korea. The UN have no official military force, it has to use volunteer troops donated by member countries to enforce its proclamations. Have no taxes, UN gets majority of its funding from the U.S. government. And the UN have no sovereignty, its buildings and employees are all in a member country and under that country’s local jurisdiction.

Why is it so great then? Because it built the foundation for any global co-operation that will include almost every country on Earth. The United Nation is very similar to NATO before the Warsaw Pact, NATO back then was a purely diplomatic relationship organization with post-war European nations now it became a military alliance that includes majority of Europe and North America. The function of NATO changed during the Cold War. It had to militarize itself and its members to combat the threat of the Soviet Union. The United Nations can and would likely to militarize its functions and powers if such a threat is present against the people of this planet. Threats such as potential global epidemic such as Ebola, natural disasters that arise from climate change, economic threats such as rampant refugees or stock market collapse, planetary threats such as meteors and big asteroids, etc.

I believe the UN could one day become another NATO instead of another League of Nations. Its current functions are essential to maintain global peace and prosperity. Even If we do ever find ourselves facing an enemy that is more powerful than the U.S., such as Ebola on Black Plague scale or Skynet, the United Nations is the organization that the people of the world will look towards to for help. And the United Nations will deliver it.

Wilde, Robert. "NATO." 2014About.com. About Education. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"Functions and Powers." United Nations Security Council. UN.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.
"United Nations." Wikipedia. Web. 10 Nov. 2014.

Does MAD Still Apply?

Mutually assured destruction, or MAD, claims that nuclear weapons have so much potential for destruction and such a large capacity to inflict death upon an enemy that actors possessing nuclear weapons will resist using them knowing that they would likely be destroyed by their enemies’ nuclear weapons as well (Shermer).  Fundamental principles of MAD are that the actors are rational and that both actors involved in the conflict have second strike capability, or the ability to deliver a nuclear strike after already having been the victim of a nuclear attack (Shermer).  Mutually assured destruction has held true since the inception of nuclear weaponry, the only nuclear strike ever delivered being the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Japan by the United States at the end of World War II.  Even in that scenario Japan possessed no second strike capability, nullifying a founding principle of MAD (History Channel).  However, as times have changed and the variety of legitimate actors has changed, does MAD still hold true?

On the one hand, no nuclear attack has occurred or appears anywhere near imminent, so MAD holds up.  Even the most unstable leader with nuclear capabilities in the world today, Kim Jong-Un of North Korea, has only threatened to attack the United States for various perceived indiscretions and has failed to pull the trigger (BBC "North Korea Threatens War on US over Kim Jong-un Movie."). 

However, on the other hand, many more actors exist in the world today that, if given the opportunity to use a nuclear device, may in fact do so based on little possible ability for effective retaliation.  The most glaring examples of such actors are terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.  The animosity towards western culture by and ideals of organizations such as these is well publicized and documented by not only western states but by ISIL and Al-Qaeda themselves.  Al-Qaeda organized and conducted the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, while ISIL has threatened President Barack Obama and the families of United States servicemen and women (BBC "In Full: Al-Qaeda Statement.", Ernst, Scarborough).  The motivation to attack a western state with nuclear capabilities, specifically the United States, is clearly present.  The problem with MAD in the cases of these two actors, along with any decentralized actor, is that finding a location to strike with a nuclear device in retaliation is impractical at best and impossible at worst. 

Should ISIL or Al-Qaeda strike a nuclear capable state with a nuclear weapon of their own, where should the state fire back a second strike and how effective would said strike be?  In the case of ISIL, should the fired upon actor return fire on Mosul, a city of 1.8 million largely innocent civilians (Sydney Morning Herald)?  Despite succeeding in eliminating a large contingent of ISIL militants, this retaliatory nuclear action would mostly slaughter innocent civilians and appear inhumane among the rational states of the world.  Additionally, actors like Al-Qaeda and ISIL are extraordinarily difficult to neutralize through conventional military means or even a nuclear attack because they are not rooted in the ground on which they stand or in the important leaders an attack might successfully exterminate.  They are instead rooted in ideas and extreme ideologies that can be passed on from person to person and likely can never be fully eradicated.

ISIL and Al-Qaeda are extremely decentralized and possess no ideal location for which to execute a nuclear strike.  Even if a strike were executed on ISIL or Al-Qaeda and it somehow did manage to eliminate every participatory militant, the extreme ideologies the organizations were founded upon will remain for others to emulate and recreate.  For these reasons, should ISIL or Al-Qaeda attain a nuclear device, it would be highly likely for them to violate the MAD doctrine and use said device in a strike against the west.  Therefore, in the 21^st century, MAD does not entirely hold true.

BBC News. "In Full: Al-Qaeda Statement." BBC News. BBC, 10 Oct. 2001. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

BBC. "North Korea Threatens War on US over Kim Jong-un Movie." BBC News. BBC, 26 June 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Ernst, Douglas. "‘We’re Coming for You, Barack Obama’: Top U.S. Official Discloses Threat from ISIL." The Washington Times 23 July 2014. The Washington Time, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/23/isil-threatens-obama-top-us-official-discloses/>.

History Channel. "Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." History.com. A&E Television Networks, LLC, 1 Jan. 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Scarborough, Rowan. "U.S. Military Ordered to Hide Identities, Change Routines to Avoid Terrorist Attacks." The Washington Times 29 Oct. 2014. The Washington Times, LLC. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/29/pentagon-issues-islamic-state-warning-to-staff-rem/>.

Shermer, Michael. "Will Mutually Assured Destruction Continue to Deter Nuclear War?"Scientific American 1 June 2014. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Sydney Morning Herald. "ISIL's New Rules for Captured City of Mosul." Sydney Morning Herald 13 June 2014. Fairfax Media. Web. 9 Nov. 2014. <http://www.smh.com.au/world/isils-new-rules-for-captured-city-of-mosul-20140613-zs783.html>.

The United Nations

Many people have lots of criticisms of the United Nations with some questioning their relevance to the world. I believe that the United Nations is still relevant but they need to fix some issues.

            First of all, I think it would be a bad idea for the United Nations to add more permanent members to the Security Council. If too many countries are added to the original five permanent members, then it gives more countries the power to veto. Too many countries with the power to veto could lead to the United Nations getting absolutely nothing done and becoming irrelevant to the world. For example, if four more permanent members were added to the Security Council, it would become hard to get everyone to agree to intervene in a crisis. It can already be hard enough for the United Nations to intervene in some situations with just five members; more than that would only make matters worse.

            Secondly, I think the United Nations president should be able to get more of a say than he already does. Maybe if the President could be more a part of the decision to intervene in a situation, then the United Nations would get more involved on certain issues. Even if the President could override a veto whatever decision the Security Council made or if he had more power, then people may be less critical of the United Nations with them being able to be active on more pressing issues.

            One thing the United Nations needs to do is to avoid ending up like the League of Nations. The League of Nations had too many people with veto power and many countries decided to leave before it was dissolved in 1946. Similar to the United Nations, the winners of World War One were the founders of the League of Nations. In addition, too many members of the League of Nations had veto power which ended up causing some problems for the organization. Woodrow Wilson, United States President, may have been the creator of the League of Nations, but the United States wanted nothing to do with it and that was another problem for the organization. Without American help, it was destined to fail. If the United States were to leave the United Nations, other countries could follow which would lead to the fall and irrelevance of the United Nations. Right now the United States is committed to the UnitedNations and is the major source of funds. The main goal of the League of Nations was to prevent another world war, but unfortunately, it was unable to do so. Even with the criticisms of the United Nations, at least the organization has been able to prevent another world war so far.

            In one situation, for example, Kosovo, the United Nations should have been stricter with their ceasefire demands, but the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization stepped in without United Nation approval and resolved the crisis.

            The United Nations can become better if the President is given more power; then they might be taken more seriously by some critics. They are still relevant to the world, and it will be around for a long time.

Should the U.S. Intervene?

Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the use of force to stop a ‘mass atrocity.’ For years, humanitarian intervention has been a sensitive issue in the United States and other powerful democratic states across the world. Currently, the United States must decide whether or not to use humanitarian intervention within Syria. I believe the United States should not use humanitarian intervention within Syria because there are too many political and practical in the way of successful intervention.

At the moment, Syria has powerful allies that could prevent the United States from a successful intervention. Not only does Syria have Iran as an ally, but also two permanent members of the United Nations (Miller). Iran proves to be a greater threat to United States humanitarian intervention than the other allies. Iran and Syria are close, strategic allies; Iran has already provided significant support for Syria in the Syrian Civil War. Seeing that the United States and Iran are enemies, humanitarian intervention in Syria could cause more trouble between the United States and Iran. Some argue that intervention in Syria could prove to Iran that the United States is more powerful with nuclear weapons (Klein). However, there’s always the possibility that Iranians see the need to accelerate their nuclear program.

            The United States must consider whether or not it has the military capability to successfully intervene in Syria. Also, is the United States willing to pay the costs and commitments of military intervention in Syria? I do not think the American people would support the costs. In fact, a 2013 Reuters poll found that only nine percent of Americans support military intervention in Syria (Tate). When the United States intervened in Somalia, Americans did not expect to lose troops on a humanitarian mission. As a result, the American people were outraged and wanted the troops pulled out (Hseih). The United States should not intervene in Syria because most of the country is not willing to accept the costs of military intervention.

            Most importantly, the United States should not intervene in Syria because it does not have a clear goal. The United States administration has said that the goal of intervening in Syria would not be regime change (Tate). What is the goal exactly? To have a successful intervention, there must be clear objectives and a precise exit strategy. The 2003 Iraqi intervention was initiated without clear objectives or an exit strategy; the Bush administration is still paying the costs of this decision (Hseih). Since the United States is lacking a clear goal for humanitarian intervention in Syria, it should not intervene.

            It is difficult to watch what is happening in Syria. Although the United States may feel it has a moral obligation to help those who are suffering in Syria, it is within our best interest to not intervene. The political and practical problems previously mentioned show that intervention should not occur until a clear goal has been set and the American people are ready to endure the costs of intervening.

Works Cited

Hsieh, Anne. "When Should We Intervene?" When Should We Intervene? Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Klein, Ezra. "The Five Best Arguments for Striking Syria — and the Best Rebuttals."Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Miller, Aaron. "Too Many Obstacles Stand in the Way of a Syrian Intervention." US News. U.S.News & World Report. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.

Tate, John. "11 Reasons Not to Intervene in Syria - Campaign for Liberty." Campaign for Liberty. Web. 9 Nov. 2014.