UN Situation in Ethiopia and Eritrea

In May of 1998, war broke out between Eritrea and Ethiopia over a boarder dispute. This war was triggered by the Eriteans after they broke an international law by invading Ethiopia . Eritrea and Ethiopia has had a difficult past with each other. For nearly thirty years, Eriteans have fought for their independence against Ethiopia . After Eritrea ’s separation, disputes over the boarders of several regions in the two countries have constantly been a problem. On one particular day in May of 1998, Eritrea ’s troops marched into the region of Badme thus starting a war between the two conflicting countries. The use of tanks and artillery came into play before the UN’s security council finally stepped in.
After air attacks started to be launched between the two cities, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1177. This resolution asked for statements to be made from both countries to end the air battles. This resolution also asked for the two countries to co-operate with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to find a common ground for both Ethiopia and Eritrea in their boarder disputes. Almost two years later in May of 2000, war broke out again between the two countries. The Security Council then proposed resolution 1297. This resolution expressed the council’s concern for the renewed fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea . It demanded both countries to come up with a resolution to their conflicts and to stop all battles and military actions. A few days after resolution 1297, the Security Council proposed resolution 1298, which prevented the two countries from getting supply assistances for weapons and military equipments. It also stressed the UN’s support of the OAU.
The UN was successful in assisting Ethiopia and Eritrea for their boarder disagreements. In June of the year 2000, both countries agreed to a peace agreement for their disbutes and a Temporary Security Zone was made inside Eritrea . Resolution 1312 was proposed in July 31, 2000 to establish military observers within Ethiopia and Eritrea The reason for the establishment of these military observers, also known as the UNMEE was to assist in future peacekeeping operations, establish the Military Coordination Commission and liaison with the two groups, and more. Resolutions 1297 and 1298 helped end the fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea . The two resolutions helped the two country move forward towards a possible resolution for their land disputes in the future. By stopping the war, the UN’s Security Council was successful in establishing a peaceful ground so that the two countries could work out an agreement for their boarders that have been the problem for the conflicts of both countries ever since Eritrea gained its independence.

Sources:
http://un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/past/unmee/background.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9806/06/ethiopia.eritrea/map.eritrea.ethiopia.jpg

The Counter-Terrorism Committee

The Counter-Terrorism Committee, or the CTC, is made up of all 15 members of the UN Security Council. The aim of the CTC is to advocate states to follow Resolutions 1373 and 1624. Including steps such as criminalizing and denying any sort of financial aid of terrorists, the freezing of any funds of people that are involved in acts of terrorism, the extinguishing of any and all safe places, provisions, or any thing else supporting terrorists within a state, the sharing of details about terrorist organizations from one state to the other, and the co-operation with governments with the investigation and arrest of terrorists.
The CTC was founded under resolution 1373 in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. In 2004 the Security Counsel adopted Resolution 1535; this created an Executive Directorate, or EDCTC, for the CTC. The EDCTC helps to provide expert advice on how to respond to terrorist acts and how to bring nations together to act against such attacks. Headed by Jeremy Greenstock, the CTC has investigated how its member states can take a more active role against terrorist acts. These include acts of the legislative branch of a government, and the aiding of member states to meet the goals set forth by Resolution 1373. During the 2005 World Summit Conference, members of the Security Counsel convened and debated over sever issues regarding terrorism that have been up for debate for years. They also came to the adoption of the formal definition for the word terrorism at the Summit. This allowed to CTC to gain more ground in aiding countries to take measures to combat terrorist organizations.
Although the CTC has made no groundbreaking efforts to abolish terrorism, and was founded out of fear of other terrorist organizations in 2001, it has much potential to aid the world in the never ending fight against terrorists. Meanwhile it remains fairly useless. The CTC has no real power to enforce resolution 1373 and merely acts as a go between for nations struggling to fight terrorists. It is also only comprised of the members of the Security Counsel. As of now, unless more members are added, it hardly makes sense to have an entire committee made of every member of a Counsel dedicated to ending bloodshed in the world.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Counter-Terrorism_Committee

http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/aboutus.html

United Nations Military Staff Committee

The United Nations Military Staff Committee is a powerful committee within the UN organization whose sole operational purpose is to plan and execute UN military operations and to provide as well as regulate arms. This committee is the most historical committee in the UN and has held a variable, but notable amount of power in the time that it has been active. It is a subcommittee within the UN Security Council, and as such, it is regulated and run primarily by the five power nations that make up the powers of the UN Security Council.
UNMSC, a common acronym for the committee, was founded by article 45 of the UN charter and was established along with the rest of the UN in 1945 after the conclusion of the Second World War. It was established in order to maintain world order as the fear of weakness in the face of power of individual nations became a reality in the Second World War. Recall after World War I in the early 1900s, the people of the most powerful nations feared that Germany would rise again. To prevent such a catastrophe, Germany was stripped of its power and military forces were placed in the four established quadrants of the nation. A body was needed to assist in the regulation of these important international affairs, so Woodrow Wilson, in his fourteen points, established, along with other world powers, the League of Nations. When Germany rose again in the Second World War, the League was militarily defenseless, and so any threats it levied against other nations (Particularly Germany, but also Japan) were empty threats that were never real, and so Germany rose to power and a struggle between nations ensued. This was a lesson to the powers of the world. They knew they had to create a powerful global governing body that could mobilize a military force and that military force would need the ability to act swiftly and effectively to end challenges to the peacemaking powers of the UN.
The committee, as of late, has done little to the benefit of the United Nations and the world. In the last “war”, the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union, despite the threat of a nuclear holocaust, the United Nations did nothing militarily to stop these two nations from taking their respective fingers off of the triggers. Because both the US and the USSR were members of the United Nations, the body was unable to act either militarily nor diplomatically in favor of either country. The end of the Cold War came and went, but to this day, the UN Military Staff Committee remains a dormant committee of sorts and is relatively inactive when it comes to global affairs.

Sources: Alan Brinkley’s “American History: A Survey”
UN Charter:

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter5.shtml

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

An organization part of the General Assembly, the agency was establish in 1997. It is a combination of two organizations, the United International Drug Control Program, and the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division stationed in Vienna. It incorporates the International Narcotics Control Board. In 2002, the division was renamed. It's current director is Yuri Fedetov, a Russian Ambassador.
The UNODC core goals are to better address illegal drug trafficking, international terrorism, criminal justice, and corruption. It is only through support, guidance, and research that it achieves these aims.
Every year, the UNODC releases The World Drug Report. The report estimates the amounts of drugs being produced and tracks trafficking. It tracks the use of heroin, cocaine, cannabis, and stimulants. It tries to identify the trends in the illegal drug market.
The committee has signed various drug treaties, all in hope of stopping transnational organized crime.
The committee has had various campaigns to educate the general public. They attempt to inspire younger audiences to avoid drugs. One of its more famous campaigns is the “Think AIDS.” Because drugs spread HIV/AIDS, they want to stop people from injecting drugs. Its slogan is “Think Before You Start...Before You Shoot... Before You Share.” The largest contributors to the UNODC's budget are nations that promote a zero tolerance drug policy like Sweden.

[Sources Pending]

The Internation Court of Justice: An Evaluation

The United Nation’s International Court of a Justice is the main judicial committee of the UN, whose major purpose is to settle disputes between states and provide legal advice to other international courts and UN bodies. The court is based in the Peace Palace, located in The Hague, Netherlands. The International Court of Justice, or the ICJ, is made up of fifteen judges selected from the Permanent Court of Arbitration by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. No two judges may come from the same country, and the judges collectively represent the major systems of law, commonly regarded as common law, civil law, and post-communist law. On certain occasions, the court may divide itself into chambers, usually of three to five judges, to resolve an issue, as it has done several times throughout its relatively short history. The Charter of the United Nations first formed the ICJ in June of 1945, with the intention of resolving international conflicts in order to adhere to the United Nation’s key goals of preventing war and breach of human rights. From the court’s beginning, the International Court of Justice has faced many cases to preside over, including several high-profile cases with plenty of media coverage. One such case was Nicaragua v. The United States of America, a 1984 case in which Nicaragua accused the United States of violating international law by supporting the Contra guerrilla group in their rebellion against the government and by disrupting trade in Nicaragua’s harbors. After hearing the arguments, the court ruled in favor of Nicaragua, awarding compensation from the United States. More recently, the International Court of Justice recently heard a case between Georgia and the Russian Federation over the war crimes and ethnic purges committed by Russia during the 2008 South Ossetia War. The ICJ has yet to announce their ruling on this case. The International Court of Justice, interestingly enough, does a fair job of having a wide diversity of judges and impartial decisions. Unfortunately, the court is also notorious for its incredible inefficiency. Even if rulings are made, the reparations or other compensations often go unpaid. In the case Nicaragua v. United States, for example, the United States got out of compensating the Nicaraguan government by using its veto power on the Security Council to block enforcement of the ruling by the United Nations. Additionally, the court can only hear the case if both parties agree to submit to the court’s decision. Adding further to the court’s dismal productivity is the fact that organizations or individuals cannot be tried. While the court is certainly full of competent and capable judges, the United Nations Constitution, as well as other bodies on the UN, limits its potential to truly solve the important issues.


Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice

http://www.icj-cij.org/

UN Intervention in Kashmir

Kashmir is a Himalayan region in South Asia. Since the independence of India and Pakistan in 1947, and the ensuing Indo-Pakistani War, ownership of Kashmir has been disputed. Currently three countries hold claim to certain parts of Kashmir: Pakistan claims the whole of it to be part of the nation of Pakistan, China lays claim to the Aksai Chin, or the west part of Kashmir. Currently, this land is occupied by India. As of this time, there is a major military conflict going on between India and Pakistan for this land.
As mentioned before, this conflict began in 1947, right after both India and Pakistan gained their indepence from Britain. Pakistani tribesmen and unofficial military combatants advanced into Kashmir. The UN, which had been pleaded to by intervene by India, passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. This Resolution, passed by a Security Council consisting of Argentina, Colombia, Belgium, Syria, Canada, Ukraine, and the Five Powers, said that Pakistani units must withdraw from Pakistan, and a plebiscite would be held by the UN in Kashmir where the people of the region would decide which nation they would go to. This Resolution, although passed by the Security Council, did not stop the still maturing nation-state of Pakistan from advancing its military. The years passed by, and the fighting faded out but never really ended. In 1965 to 1971, fighting erupted again and India pushed Pakistan out of the country. In 1989 again, Pakistani soldiers infiltrated the region. This almost erupted into nuclear war, but U.S. President Bill Clinton intervened.
In 1947, the Security Council's solution to the Kashmir problem, a solution that had the potential to end fighting between India and Pakistan forever, was too idealistic. The U.N. believed that the conflict was one of nationalism and the interest of both of the nations was to govern over people most like them. As can be seen from the consequences, this is not true. Both nations simply wanted the land for its natural beauty and resources. The driving forces were economic rather than political. Thus, a resolution that should be proposed would be to divide the resources equally between the two countries. This would be passed by a new and improved Security Council, one that holds military power and will punish any nation that will break the resolution. Each nation would gain an equal amount of the economic value proposed by an impartial committee, with environmental factors taken into consideration. Since the people of Kashmir have not spoken up yet to say what they feel, they are clearly divided on this subject. Such an action would ensure that both nations will stop fighting, thus saving the lives of many young soldiers from a meaningless death, and would also be a step towards a more peaceful world.

A Case of UN Intervention: Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone, after its emancipation from the British empire in 1961, was in both political and economic turmoil until the UN stepped in 1999. It can be seen as a success story for the UN because, in this case, an international panel of countries called the Security Council helped cease the fighting and stabilize the country. Now, the country's main goal is economic growth.

Sierra Leone was first established as an English abolitionist colony in 1787, and became a crown colony for the empire in 1808, after it was discovered that diamonds lay in soil underneath it. After years of oppressive British reign, the country was assisted into sovereignty by Sir Milton Margai, a politician who wrote the country's constitution and went on to become the nation's first prime minister. After Margai's death, the nation faced several coups until politician Siaka Stevens declared the nation to be a "republic", but it was rather a one-party totalitarian regime. Stevens' oppressive rule lead to a horrible economic deficit, and ultimately the nation's bloodiest conflict in recent history, the Sierra Leone Civil War.

In an interest to properly manage the natural resources and legalize harmful drug trade, angry citizens formed Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, an armed rebellion. The RUF was infamous for amputating the hands and feet off their victims' limbs. The RUF lead a successful campaign and overthrew the president, capturing several diamond mines along the way. The UN sanctioned any trading with the rebels, but private groups from Britain and America helped arm the rebels in the interest of diamond trade. The UN then resorted to severe measures, and deployed troops to disarm the rebels in the rebels' own territory. The British government also became compelled, and trained a small army of Sierra Leone locals to crush the rebel forces. Later, the rebels were tried in a UN-backed war court, including the President of Liberia Charles Taylor who contributed to the rebellion in a huge way. UN peacekeeping troops stayed in Sierra Leone until December 2006, when it was decided that the government had stabilized.

The goal of Sierra Leone today is economic development. Although it is still in an economic rut due to the large amount of diamond smuggling, it is now a relatively peaceful country. The only way to help the country achieve its complete economic potential is for other countries to give it meaningful aid. This does not mean aiding the head of the federal government directly. If other countries help stabilize the ports in a non-aggressive way and aid the country's federal troops keep smugglers out, the outside countries can establish a fair-trade scenario where they may even potentially benefit by receiving diamonds from a healthily competing natural resources economy, not a dangerous one plagued by crime.