Case Study: Korea

UN involvement in Korea Korea was the first real test of the newly formed United Nations. Only 5 years after the establishment the United Nations wanted to address Korea properly to assert itself as a strong international organization. If it dealt with Korea unsuccessfully, the United Nations would be seen as a failure and similar to the League of Nations. The North of Korea was dominated by the USSR and the USA dominated the South at the end of WW2. The Soviet Union had vetoed the South Koreans from joining the United Nations and in vice versa the USA wouldn’t recognise the legitimacy of North Korea. In 1950 North invaded South and the Americans took it straight to the UN’s Security Council.

 The Security Council of the UN learned of the full scale attack of South Korea’s intentions, and discussions were held on the same day of the invasion, June 25 th The met up on how the UN should respond. The United States had much faith in the newly established UN as it had come directly to the UN to address their Korean problem. The USSR representatives to the Security Council did not attend the meeting as they were boycotting the United Nations for recognising Chiang Kai-shek’s government in Taiwan as the official government for China and they were (the UN) ignoring Mao’s communist regime in Beijing. The use of the Soviet veto did not occur. It made a mockery of the UN’s principle of ‘collective security’. The UN called for the withdrawal of North Korean troops from South Korea on the same day of the invasion.

 2 days later on the 27 th of June, a resolution was passed recommending UN members to assist the South as North Korea had ignored the Security Council. This was also voted for and once again the Russians could not use their veto as they were still boycotting the United Nations. The United Nations now had to formulate new plans. Sixteen member states would provide troops under a United Nations Joint Command. It would fight with the South Korean Army. As well the American’s themselves had prepared to attack North Korea under their own flag.

 This United Nations force was primarily dominated by America even to the extent of being commanded by an American general – Douglas MacArthur However, the choice of MacArthur was hardly argumentative as his ultimate success in the Pacific War in WW2 made him one of the most famous generals of his era. He was also very popular with the American public who may have been less supportive of yet more foreign military intervention if a non-American had been chosen. The lack of Soviet veto and the British and French resolved on the commanding general.

 However, when the USSR returned from boycotting, (in August) the UN’s situation changed. The USA wanted to attack the North and reunite them both under a Western Style government, but naturally the USSR would veto against such an action. The USA came up with a plan that would change the balance of the UN in their favour as it was the USSR’s turn to hold Council Presidency. To get around the power of the veto in the Security Council the USA wanted to transfer the power to the General Assembly where the USA had more support. It would take a couple more months for this to go through until November ‘Uniting for Peace’ was a resolution formed that allowed decisions to be resolved by he General Assembly when the Security Council was blocked by veto.

 In the meantime, on September 15 th 1950, the UN landed troops in an assault at Inchon is South Korea. The landing was a huge success and the United Nations effectively cut the North Korean army in half and pushed them out of South Korea. MacArthur then advanced into North Korea – despite the warnings from Communist China. This resulted in a Chinese attack on United Nations troops and between November 1950 and January 1951, the Chinese managed to push back the United Nations force. The Americans then changed their objectives, and they had decided to no longer push for unification. The US had now limitations and the UN could now seek a compromise within the war.

 After a clash with President Truman in 1951, MacArthur was sacked and the war degenerated into a war of stalemate with neither the United Nations or the Chinese managing to gain the upper hand. In 1953, a ceasefire was agreed at Panmunjon (South Korea) which exists to this day.

Success or Failure?  In the West it was seen as a success but for the USSR it was seen as a mere manipulation of the UN as another anti- communist force. The USSR vowed it wouldn’t trust the UN with its country’s security.  Not all Americans were convinced of the UN’s force. It meant to them that the Cold War and collective security were incompatible.  The UN clearly was dominated by US money, influence and troops. People felt that it was just another face of the Cold War in fighting Communism.

Case Study: Bosnia

Crisis in Bosnia  In 1991 crisis broke out in Bosnia when following collapse of communism, nationalists won the first multi- party elections and formed coalition government despite having conflicting goals: Muslim nationalists want centralized independent Bosnia, Serb nationalists want to stay in Belgrade-dominated rump Yugoslavia, Croats want to join independent Croatian state.

 In 1992, war broke out and Slobodan Milošević, President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, started ethnic cleansing. The Serb forces attacked a non-Serb civilian population in Eastern Bosnia, and systematically attacked, captured and killed Bosniak citizens. This was considered a huge violation of human rights.

UN involvement in Bosnia  At first when the crisis broke out in Bosnia in 1991, the UN believed that a European response might be the best solution. NATO forces were sent out to protect the non- Serb area of Eastern Bosnia. However, the UN was forced to get involved when it became clear that NATO was not strong enough to deal with the ethnic tensions between local Muslims, Croats and Serbs.

Srebrenica  The UN and NATO planned to work together, but there were tensions between the two organizations from the start. The UN were supposed to protect innocent civilians and had told them that the town of Srebrenica was a safe zone. However, because of their mandate they could not do anything to protect the civilians who had gathered in Srebrenica for safety, and the town was abandoned to the mercy of the Bosnian Serbs. There was a massacre as a result that ended in the death of over 8,000 innocent civilians.

 After this horrendous failure on the part of the UN, NATO forces seized the initiative. NATO eventually won through a sustained air offensive against the Serbs and the conflict ended in the Dayton Accord of November 1995.

Success or failure?  The Bosnian crisis was a failure from the perspective of the effectiveness of the UN. It highlighted once again the problems facing the UN, especially in a world with only one superpower. With the end of the Cold War, UN member states began to show reluctance to multilateralism and collective security. Therefore, any consensus that could be achieved by the UN would be limited.

 However, the Bosnian crisis was a success from the standpoint that NATO had managed to secure peace in Bosnia. The contrast between the effectiveness of the two organizations showed even further how the UN had been proved unable to make the military commitment necessary to enforce its resolutions.

 Thus, the initial optimism about the authority and capabilities of the post-Cold War UN faded.