The United Nations​—A Better Way?

THE preamble to the United Nations Charter expresses these noble aims: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, . . . and [desiring] to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, . . . have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims.”

Did the UN “accomplish these aims”? Did it get the nations to unite their strength and maintain peace and security? No, not so far, although the UN has sincerely tried to be a significantly better way than the League of Nations. However, the generation that saw its establishment in 1945 has since been scourged by wars, revolutions, invasions, coups, and aggression in many parts of the earth. And this violence involved many of the nations that had resolved to “maintain international peace and security.”

Not the Better Way Yet

Critics who decry the failure of the United Nations to prevent these woes, though, may be forgetting an important fact​—the strength of an organization depends on the power its charter gives it and on the commitment of its constituents to carry out their obligations under said charter. First of all, the United Nations Charter does not set up the UN as a world government with supreme power over all its member nations.

Article 2(7) decrees: “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” UNCIO (United Nations Conference on International Organization), which met in San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945, to finalize the charter, deemed it necessary “to make sure that the United Nations under prevalent world conditions should not go beyond acceptable limits or exceed due limitations.”

Did you notice that qualifying phrase, “under prevalent world conditions”? If these were to change, UNCIO claimed that this ruling could be developed “as the state of the world, the public opinion of the world, and the factual interdependence of the world makes it necessary and appropriate.”

The chartered purpose of the United Nations to maintain “international peace and security” expresses a desirable goal for mankind. The world would indeed be far more secure if the nations obeyed Article 2(4) of the UN Charter: “All Members shall refrain . . . from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” But self-interest of member nations has repeatedly hamstrung the efforts of the UN toward achieving its purpose. Rather than living up to their UN commitment to “settle their international disputes by peaceful means,” nations or whole blocs of nations have often resorted to war, claiming that the ‘matter was essentially within their domestic jurisdiction.’​—Article 2(3,7).

So the only peace that the UN can achieve is control of violence.

Is this really peace with security? True, “membership in the United Nations is open to all . . . peace-loving states.” (Article 4(1))