Can the United Nations Enforce Peace?
SIR LESLIE MUNRO, New Zealand Ambassador to the United States, 1952-58; President of the U.N. General Assembly, 1958; formerly Dean of the Faculty of Law, Auckland University College, and editor of the New Zealand Herald
ON September 4 of this year the Laotian Government, in a message to the Secretary-General, requested the assistance of the United Nations and "in particular . . . that an emergency force to halt aggression and to prevent its spreading should be dispatched with greatest possible speed." In the debate in the Security Council on September 7, 1959, Sir Pierson Dixon, on behalf of the United Kingdom, said that his Government had for some time favored the creation of a stand-by force which would be available to the United Nations. "But," he said, "the fact is that no such force exists."
Sir Pierson could have gone further. If Laos becomes the victim of aggression, it hardly seems likely that the United Nations will save her, given the fact that the world organization has no stand-by force, even one which by its simple presence might deter military activity. It will be only SEATO, or more probably its principal party, the United States, that can or will come to the aid of this distressed country. In other words, the chief bulwark of endangered states today is not the United Nations but either a great power or a regional organization.
In the context of this article I do not need to discuss the merits of the Laotian complaint. But Sir Pierson Dixon's observations lend point to Mr. Lester Pearson's questions, posed in an article in this review,[i] on the problem of the establishment of a United Nations force available to cope with an emergency:
Are we to go on from crisis to crisis improvising in haste? Or can we now pool our experience and our resources, so that the next time we, the governments and peoples whom the United Nations represents, will be ready and prepared to act?
The purpose of this article is to urge that in a troubled and divided world the time for improvising in haste is past, and that we need now to grapple with the question of establishing an effective United Nations force readily available in an emergency...
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Since the establishment of the United Nations, great powers have rarely let small wars burn themselves out. Bosnia and Kosovo are the latest examples of this meddling. Conflicts are interrupted by a steady stream of cease-fires and armistices that only postpone war-induced exhaustion and let belligerents rearm and regroup. Even worse are U.N. refugee-relief operations and NGOs, which keep resentful populations festering in camps and sometimes supply both sides in armed conflicts. This well-intentioned interference only intensifies and prolongs struggles in the long run. The unpleasant truth is that war does have one useful function: it brings peace. Let it.
Some threats to international security are so potentially damaging that preventing them in advance is preferable to remedying their effects. In such cases, states should judge preventive actions by a standard of legitimacy, not strict legality.
PEACE, one might think, is not the sort of human occupation which should normally require supervision. Yet the United Nations, instead of concentrating on more positive and progressive activities, has ever since its inception been engaged in supervising a kind of peace which has been not much more than the absence of fighting--and not always even that. Now policing a peace--or an armistice--can be an essential international function, at times a dramatic one. It cannot be denied that the United Nations has been successful in this function in some important cases.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.