Missing In Action: The Inability Of Toothless Global Bodies To Stop Wars

Whenever, wherever, leaders cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war, do you hope a world body would step in to stop the mayhem? Do you dream of a mechanism with teeth kicking in, safeguarding civilians and saving lives before skirmishes spiral into never-ending wars? Do you picture an organisation actively preventing aggression by world powers? A league whose resolutions no aggressor can ignore? Dream on…

Back in 1920, in the wake of the ravages of WWI, the League of Nations was set up to maintain world peace. This was the first international organisation of its kind whose mission was the pursuit of peace. The Covenant of the League was full of lofty goals: prevent wars through collective security and disarmament, settle international disputes via negotiation and arbitration. At the time, WWI was being seen as the war to end all wars. ‘Never again’, the League and its member states swore, assuring everybody that the war had taught humanity an unforgettable lesson.  

We know how that story goes. As the Axis powers flexed their military might in the 1930s, the League watched helplessly. It didn’t have any armed forces under its command. Gradually, member states, including Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain withdrew from the League. When WWII erupted, the League, whose express mission was to keep the peace, was written off as a failure. Eight-five million lives were lost in WWII. The economic and psychological toll of the war was crushing. In the wake of this devastation, the United Nations (UN) was formed in 1945 in the hope of preventing future wars. In 1948, the UN General Assembly passed the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. The UN Charter promises to save the world from the ‘scourge of war’, to foster international cooperation, to protect human rights, and to uphold international law.

Charters are charters. And peace, a hope dulled by reality’s shadow. An old dream, haunting us yet again as US-Israel forces strike Iran, Iran retaliates, and war engulfs the whole of West Asia. UN Secretary General, António Guterres, has called for immediate de-escalation and cessation of hostilities in the region. He issued a statement warning that failure to do so will lead to wider conflict, putting civilian lives and regional stability at risk, and undermining international security.

Meanwhile American President Donald Trump (who campaigned as the anti-war candidate, promising Americans to keep the country out of expensive overseas conflicts), has announced that the combat operation, which goes by the pumped-up moniker ‘Epic Fury’, will carry on all week. As for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he has made it clear to the people of Iran that his country’s ‘Operation Lion’s Roar’ is meant to create the conditions for them “to take their destiny into their own hands” and “remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.” The din of bombs and missiles drowns out the rhetoric of both leaders. Since the attacks were launched on February 28, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has been killed. Several other prominent Iranian politicians and security establishment figures are also reported to have been killed. An Israeli strike on a girls’ school in southern Iran has left at least 150 dead according to Iranian state media. Retaliatory attacks by Iran on US bases in the Gulf Cooperation Council states have affected the entire region and left the whole world jittery. At this point, calls for peace and de-escalation from the UN and tweets expressing concern for those affected by the war hover in the air like faint, ghostly echoes.

The UN has been facing criticism for long now: its effectiveness in preventing wars, stopping them, and managing conflicts has come under increasing scrutiny in a volatile world where international law itself is in jeopardy. Consider the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was rolled out without the required authorisation of the UN Security Council. Consider the ongoing wars in Somalia, South Sudan, Gaza and Ukraine. The organisation’s failure to prevent genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia, Srebrenica and Bangladesh are also well documented.

The only UN body with the power to authorise the use of military force is the UN Security Council. The permanent members of the Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China—have veto powers. If even one of the permanent members casts a veto, the UN cannot go ahead with military intervention in any part of the world. The balance of power within the council is also skewed by the fact that the United States is the biggest contributor to the UN’s budget and the UN headquarters, a swanky Manhattan landmark, are located in New York City.

The UN does not have a permanent military force or dedicated army of its own. It relies on member states to contribute volunteers to the UN peace-keeping forces. The UN peacekeeping missions have done commendable work in some parts of the globe in offering humanitarian aid and helming conflict management, but peacekeepers have been accused of sexual abuse and exploitation in a few countries, most of these allegations related to the missions in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Central African Republic.

With authoritarian regimes on the rise in many parts of the world and widening fissures in the global landscape, the UN’s mission of maintaining international peace takes on all the more urgent tones today. Will the organisation find more effective ways to respond to the challenge?