The Role of the United Nations in International Security and Peacekeeping

This article examines the objectives of the United Nations, the ideologies of international security, the performance and critiques of the UN Security Council, and how international security can be achieved through peacekeeping missions.

PREFACE
The major problems confronting the international security has notably changed
since the end of the cold war thus facilitating the resolution of many conflicts in
regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and North America through the
assistance of the United Nations. Peacekeeping operations is the major way the
United Nations keep to its objective of maintaining international peace and
security. According to the UN charter, its aims are:
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…to reaffirm faith in fundamental
human rights,…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom”. - www.un.org
However, its peacekeeping missions has been evident in the international
system thereby influencing other worldwide organisations to involve in
peacekeeping.
The anarchic structure of the international system is a political setting for
international security. States are extremely relational and depend on one
another, and these denotes the main aim of security. If the national security rely
on either hegemony or harmony, then state peace cannot be gotten from conflict
and anarchy. If anarchy continues to exist, these conditions will continue to be
relative. However, international security is part of the UN charter. If anarchy
holds, the UN will stand as an instrument to reduce conflicts and promote peace
internationally. There have been arguments between the idealists and realists
that have pessimistic and optimistic views of UN peacekeeping missions.
Idealists argue that international peace and cooperation is achievable with the
help of the United Nations. On the contrary, the realists argue that cooperation
in the international system can be achieved through ‘self-help’ which consists of
state actors. Furthermore, the peacekeeping institution is facing controversies as
there are debates on various ways to ensure international security and peace.
This work thoroughly examines the organisational objectives of the UN, both
idealist and realist ideology of international security context, performances and
critiques of the United Nations Security Council as well as an analysis of how
international security can be obtained through peacekeeping missions.

BACKGROUND AND MISSION STATEMENT OF THE UNITED
NATIONS
Established in 1945 to replace the League of Nations, the United Nations was
created for various objectives and reasons.
- International Peace keeping and Security: UN was solely created to
maintain international peace and security after the end of the Second
World war. It was to regulate the relations of states, dissuade them from
going to war and if that eventually happens, provide necessary measures
to preserve peace. UN charter implies that peace should be maintained
through collective security. Prior to the outbreak of the Cold war, there
was clash of interests between states (like Syria, Iran, Indonesia, Greece
etc.) which led to hostility and this left the superpowers to take sides. The
interference of these superpowers restricted the UN peacekeeping
mission. The tension and disagreement between the Soviet Union and US
crippled the implementation of the UN charter for peacekeeping. The
conflicts between various states made the Security Council not to make
use of the collective security mechanism in chapter 7 of the charter which
resulted in threat of international peace and security. No military or
political action was taken because of the enmity of the world
superpowers. The UN peacekeeping observation method was initially to
replace collective security. The failure of the maintenance of peace left
the organisation to create a new technique. Under the charter, peace
keeping encompasses from inter-personal crisis resolution to peace
enforcement operations. However, after the Cold war, the UN peace
keeping mission proved to be effective. Conflicts were managed between
states and eternal solutions to these conflicts were hopefully achieved.
UN peacekeeping operations has notably contributed to international
peace by separating combatants. At the end of the cold war, political
crisis drastically reduced and this gave room for the UN Security Council
to function more effectively. In 1990s, more UN forces were deployed
and the resolution of conflict increased.
- Promotion of friendly relations between states: UN aims at enhancing
diplomacy through the resolution of conflicts and peaceful relations
among nation-states.
- To foster cooperation among states; to enable the international problems
(political, economic or cultural) to be resolved.
- Protection of human rights and provision of humanitarian aids

The formation of the UN was for reasons such as:
- The prevention of wars like the 1st and 2nd world war from happening.
- Promotion of integration globally.
- Solving certain problems the nation-states find difficult to address.
The structure (main organs) of the UN are as follows:
- The General Assembly
- Security Council (comprises of five permanent members – UK, France,
United States, China and Russia)
- The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
- Secretariat
- International Court of Justice
- Trusteeship Council
PHILOSOPHY OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND
PEACEKEEPING
The principle political structure of the international system is the anarchic
context. Anarchy set the stage for political elements whereby international
security has to be determined. There is need to therefore preserve independence
and promote sovereignty; thus creating various impacts of relations between
nations. Anarchic context implies a competitive nature of states and its’
existence through ‘self-help’. Chaotic structure in international system results to
deprivation of cooperation and peace. Idealists believe that the success of
national security is determined by the prevention of conflicts among nations and
absence of the hunger for power. On the contrary, the realists philosophy of
achievement of security is via the maximum use of power; states ought to be
competitive and powerful. This power ensured states are stable and ready to
wage war, thereby gaining its national interest. An overview of the realist
ideology suggests that power is the same as security when it is capable of
regulating the affairs of the state. However, the basis of the realists philosophy
of security is centred on national interest which is the major aim of national
security. This view is rather pessimistic in international system.
Presently, the environment of the international security system is extremely
complex compared to period of the Cold war. Evident challenges of this system
are the increasing number of fragile states and their inability to defend
themselves or manage their national affairs. The fragility of these sovereign

states and the high rate of domestic conflict depicts the problematic nature of
collective security system.
The theoretical argument between conflict and peace has not changed since the
end of the Cold war. The dominant realist philosophy argues that change is
limited in this aspect. Anarchy still exists with the presence of sovereign state
that has no system-wide government. If there’s no coercion of power, a self-
made system is established by state actors. Central authority cannot exist in
sovereign states and its system remains anarchical giving them the right to
decide on their use of force. Idealist or liberalist philosophy has remained
optimistic. They believe that even if there is anarchy, state can put aside their
differences, come together to achieve a common goal and maintain international
security. This philosophy believe in peace and cooperation among states and
support democracy as a major factor in international politics.
According to Mearsheimer, the main purpose of peacekeeping is to deploy
ceasefires for wars concerning the minority. He also argues that peacekeeping is
of no use to western or greater powers as it is formidable to exercise forceful
power, which is extremely important in collective security system. However, it
has no role to play in settling of disputes between world powers. The role of UN
and other organisations like the OAU (Organisation of African Unity) in
maintaining international relations and promoting peace is “on the margin”.
Even if the realists are pessimistic, contemporarily there have been growth in
security management of the Western society which is evident in US influence
and power. To realists, organisations have little or no influence in regulating the
behaviour of states, so therefore institutions are not main actors in regulating
peace.
THE UNITED NATIONS PERFORMANCE AND ROLE IN
PEACEKEPING: A TOOL OF NATIONAL OR COMMON INTEREST?
The international society may be characterised by authority, law and order but it
obviously doesn’t comprise of the hierarchy system of government. According
to Waltz, “domestic systems are centralized and hierarchical but the
international systems are decentralized and anarchical”. Realists claim that in an
anarchical society, states compete with each other to attain security, influence,
power and good market. Their basic principle is to domestically organise power
and then move to the international society to attain more power.
All states must have a common interest to survive. Survival is mandatory
notwithstanding if it’s for war or to gain independence. Waltz argue that states’
major objective is to survive. He assumes that unitary actors such as states fight

for their survival while the maximization of profits is what economic actors
fight to achieve. Mearsheimer argues that, the main aim for states is to acquire
domination in the international society. States always seek to acquire power
which is the result of politics; the acquisition of power and influence is the
national interest which is analysed as the selfish interest of a more dominant
group. Taking an instance of the invasion of the United States to Haiti two and
half decades ago, President Bill Clinton openly told the American people in an
interview that their national security interest is being affected by what happens
in Haiti so the should react as soon as possible to protect their interests.
Great powers support various peace keeping missions in an international system
mostly for their national interest. Like during the Cold War time, many clashes
were ignored and just thirteen peacekeeping missions were created which was
because of the disagreement of Western powers and their various interests.
Also, US had an advancement of interest in the Middle East which assisted
Israel (one of US closest allies) when six peacekeeping operations were
installed between the years 1948 and 1978. Other US allies like Morocco,
Turkey and Greece also benefited from peacekeeping activities. However the
UN Security Council became a tool for the US to attain its national interest. A
report of the International Institute of Strategic Studies stated that the
effectiveness of peacekeeping operations depended on the leading role of a
country or institution, whether big or small. If there was absence of authority
from the United Nations, the Middle East, American and its allies wouldn’t
have participated. The United Nations Security Council discreetly authorised an
Australian peace keeping operation in 1999 to put an end to the terror caused by
Indonesian militants who displaced and killed thousands of people because East
Timor sought and voted for their independence. It was also stated that the US
was likely to draw its troop back from the Balkans because of its national
interest. IISS accounted that US peacekeeping officials could not risk sending
military troops to sub-Sahara Africa for intervention. However, the role of UN
in peacekeeping is solely dependent on its security and national interest.
Under the Regan administration, UN could not function properly as it was seen
as a tool of the Soviet and third world countries to bypass the interests of the
US. After the fall of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union, US gained more
confidence and believed that UN could protect the interest of American foreign
policy. During Clinton administration, he stated that the UN could only enforce
peace when it’s in their interest. However, there was a change in his
administration in 1994 as the UN peacekeeping mission was reassessed and
considered as far as it was in favour of US national interest. There was no
difference in Washington’s administration too as he funded the UN solely

because of America’s interest like in the case of the Middle East. Therefore UN
peacekeeping missions has been seen as a “tool” for the advancement of
America’s national interest. Peacekeeping to America was clearly because of its
foreign policy processes of unilateralism and multilateralism.
Idealists argue that after the Cold war, states deploy means for collective
interest such as justice, peace and an advancement of life which has always
been the same. This cooperative interest discourages warfare in states. The basis
of idealism was the establishment of peacekeeping institutions to promote
arbitration and peace among states. Apart from military related issues, the
liberalists believe it is a means to contribute to international politics even during
the cold war. Some scholars believe that peacekeeping missions are important
tools to boost the international security and overthrow anarchy but must states
see it as a means to satisfy their national interest. Thus, the selectivity of these
great powers to participate in peacekeeping has created functionality problems
of the UN Security Council.
CRITICISMS OF THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
The establishment of the United Nations to replace the League of Nations as the
major international body responsible for promoting peace and ensuring security
has lived up to its part in years. Its history is a short one but with so many
stories. It was originally founded to ensure that world leaders meet to set out
their differences to promote peace. However after the Cold War, as leaders
could meet and arrange summits without the fear of being attacked by other
states with nuclear war, the United Nations shifted from its main aim of
peacekeeping to humanitarian aid. The UN has succeeded in remaining relevant
in social welfare in the international system because they have deployed over
120,000 peacekeepers but what about its relevance in the maintaining world
peace and diplomacy which it was initially created for?
- The Security Council has no balance of power as it is dominated by five
permanent members with veto power. Every two years, five of its non-
permanent members are elected to serve. Demographically, there is an
underrepresentation of Latin America and Africa as its permanent
members are form Asia, Europe and North America. There have been an
argument that for the UN to make best decisions about peace, the whole
world needs to be represented.
- It might seem as though the UN Security Council is fair, but it in reality
it is lopsided as its permanent members are always on top of the list when
military expenditure is mentioned. It has been criticised of being corrupt
as there have been diversion of funds as claimed. They are accountable
for over 60% of world military expenditure yet 40% is allocated to United

States alone. Also, the oil-for-food programme by the UN in 1995 where
Iraq was encouraged to trade its oil for food, humanitarian needs and
security is known to have suffered from corruption as funds were also
diverted.
- The Security council has been criticised of being inefficient and
bureaucratic and its role has been noted to be overemphasized. Its five
permanent members can veto any resolution and put down any nation that
is not in favour of attaining their interests as the “vote of no” which is
constituted in its bylaws can strike a resolution. An example is recently
when the US vetoed about 32 resolutions which was problematic for
Israel thereby trumping on the global interest.
- It has been stated that there is a non-binding agreement in the SC. In the
case of the crisis of Darfur and massacre in Srebrenica, sanction was
supposed to be placed on the countries as agreed in the charter but the
reverse was the case. United Nations acknowledged the error but the
Security Council did nothing about it.
- The problem of consensus and unrealistic expectations is also an evident
critique of the Security Council.
CONCLUSION
Contemporarily, there is an immense change in the international system but
there is an existence of factors that disrupt world peace and security. Order and
development of countries are being hindered by conflict and problems. Enabling
UN to work more effectively to maintain peace and create a favourable
environment to enhance development is becoming a difficult task.
Notwithstanding, UN is trying to promote international security through its
keeping operations. Though it failed to end conflicts in former Yugoslavia or
Cambodia, it preserved thousands of lives through its peacekeeping mission. It
has recorded successes in countries such as Angola, Mozambique, El Salvador
and few others. However with an increase in global threats, intra-state conflicts
and globalization, the UN has become more relevant in the international system.
Its multilateral operations has proved to be the most effective means of
peacekeeping.

REFERENCES
Diehl, P. F., 1993. International Peacekeeping. Baltimore & London: The Johns
Hopkins University Press. Chapter 28.
Buotros, B. G., 1995. An Agenda for Peace, 2nd edition. New York: United
Nations.
5. Olara A. Otunnu, Maintaining broad legitimacy for United Nations Action,“ ”
in John Roper, Masashi Nishihara, Olara A. Otunnu, Erid C.B. Schoettle (eds.)
Keeping the Peace in the Post-Cold War Era: Strengthening Multilateral
Peacekeeping (New York: The Trilateral commission, 1993): 93-97.
6. Barry Buzan, Rethinking Security and Anarchy, in Ken Booth (ed.) New“”
Thinking about Strategy and International security (London: Harper Collins
Academic, 1991): 32.
7. Ibid.
8. Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House,
1979): 91-92.
9. John H. Hertz, Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma, World“
Politics, Vol.2, no.2, (1950): 157-80.
10. Tim Dunne and Brian C. Schmidt, Realism, in John Baylis & Steve Smith“”
(eds.) The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International
Relations 2nd edition. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001):153.
Danielle Beswick and Paul Jackson (2011), Conflict, security, and
development: an introduction (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge)
Philippe Bourbeau, ed. (2015), Security: dialogue across disciplines
(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press)
Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen (2009), The evolution of international security
studies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Peter G. Danchin and Horst Fischer, eds. (2010), United Nations reform and the
new collective security (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Jared Genser and Bruno Stagno Ugarte, eds. (2014), The United Nations
Security Council in the age of human rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press)
Stephanie C. Hofmann (2013), European security in NATO's shadow: party
ideologies and institution building (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Hitoshi Nasu and Kim Rubenstein, eds. (2015), Legal perspectives on security
institutions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Norrin M. Ripsman and T.V. Paul (2010), Globalization and the national
security state (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
Nicholas Tsagourias and Nigel D. White (2013), Collective security: theory,
law and practice (Csambridge: Cambridge University Press)
11. Cynthia Weber, International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction
(New York: Routledge, 2001): 39.
12. Ibid.
13. Inis L. Claude, Jr. The United Nations and Collective Security, in Richard“”
B. Gray (ed.) Security System: Concepts and Models of World Order (Illinois:
Peacock Publishers, Inc. 1969 ):119.
14. John J. Mearsheimer, J The False Promise of International Institutions,“ ”
International Security, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1994/95): 34.
19. Patrick M.Morgan, Liberalist and Realist Security Studies at 2000: Two“
decades of Progress, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Dec.1999):”
39-71.

20. Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000): 92.
24. John T.Rourke. International Politics on the World Stage, 5th edition
(Guilford: Dushkin publishing Group, 1995): 17.
25. Frederick H. Fleitz, Jr., Peacekeeping Fiasco of the 1990s: Causes,
Solutions, and U.S. Interests (Westport, Connecticut & London: Praeger, 2002):
67.
John Gerard Ruggie, The United States and the United Nations: Towards a“
New Realism, International Organization, Vol. 39 (Spring 1985): 343-56.”
31. Victoria Holt, Briefing Book on Peacekeeping: The United States Role in
United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (Washington, DC: Council for a
Livable World Education Fund, 1994): 114.
32. Joel J.Sokolsky, The Americanization of Peacekeeping: Implications for“
Canada Martello Papers, 17 (Kingston: Centre for International Relations,”
Queens University, 1997):17.’
33. Stephen M. Hill & Shahin p. Malik, Peacekeeping and the United Nations
(Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd., 1996):
38. See, Ibid. 39.
39. Inis L. Claude, Jr. Power and International Relations (New York: Random
House, 1962): 62.
40. John J. Mearshiermer, op.cit. 34.
41. Major General Indar Rikhye, The Politics and Practice of United Nations
Peacekeeping: Past, Present and Future. (Toronto: Brown Book Company Ltd.,
2000): 61.