1. Conservative Approach: The conservative view considers the existing Charter "practically untouchable" and believes in improving "collective security" as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include: US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
2. Secretary-General's Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of 'collective security' as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed 'peace enforcement units' under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of 'preventive diplomacy'. The report candidly recognized the Security Council's incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
Radical Approach: The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter's collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
* Establishing an Economic Security Council
* Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
* Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
* Developing a new global security system (e.g., regional models like CSCE/CSCM).
* The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook: The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter's amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political, opposing the defence of democracy and human rights against nationalism and fascism. (408 words)
(Summary of the article titled “The UN as an organisation. A critique of its functioning” by Maurice Bertrand, published in 6 EJIL (1995) pp-349-359)
Understanding UN Reform and Peacekeeping Proposals
The provided text critically examines the United Nations' effectiveness and discusses different approaches to UN reform. A key aspect highlighted is the Secretary-General's vision for enhancing the UN's capacity to maintain peace and security, particularly addressing situations that fall between traditional peacekeeping and full-scale military intervention.
Analyzing the Secretary-General's 'Agenda for Peace' Proposal
The question focuses on a specific military capability proposed within the Secretary-General's 'Agenda for Peace'. This proposal aimed to bridge a crucial gap. Let's break down what the document says about this capability:
- The text mentions Secretary-General Boutros Ghali advocated for the "full implementation of 'collective security' as envisaged in 1945".
- It also states he "proposed 'peace enforcement units' under the command of the Secretary-General".
- These units were intended to provide a capability distinct from traditional peacekeeping, suggesting a need for greater capacity or different operational parameters.
Evaluating the Options Based on the Document
Now, let's look at each option in light of the information from the text:
Option 1: Composed of permanent Member State forces under Article 43 agreements.
While the text mentions Article 43 agreements and the Military Staff Committee in relation to implementing collective security, it does not explicitly state that the proposed 'peace enforcement units' would be *composed* of permanent Member State forces under these specific agreements. The focus of the proposal seems to be on a distinct unit under the Secretary-General's command.
Option 2: Less heavily armed than peace-keeping forces and under the direction of the Military Staff Committee.
This option contradicts the likely purpose of a unit designed to handle situations beyond traditional peacekeeping. If it were less heavily armed, it might not be effective in scenarios requiring more than standard peacekeeping. Furthermore, while the Military Staff Committee is mentioned in the context of Article 43, the text explicitly places the proposed 'peace enforcement units' under the command of the Secretary-General, not the Military Staff Committee.
Option 3: More heavily armed than peace-keeping forces and under the command of the Secretary-General.
This option aligns directly with the text. The proposal for 'peace enforcement units' is stated to be "under the command of the Secretary-General". The nature of such units, designed to operate between peacekeeping and full military action, implies they would require a greater capacity, hence being "more heavily armed than peace-keeping forces".
Option 4: Primarily associated with NATO under a regional security arrangement.
The document mentions the US position favors associating the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. However, this is presented as part of the US reform stance, not as a characteristic of the Secretary-General's proposed 'peace enforcement units'. The Secretary-General's proposal is distinct and focuses on UN command.
Conclusion on the Proposed Military Capability
Based on the explicit statements in the provided summary regarding Boutros Ghali's 'Agenda for Peace', the proposed military capability, referred to as 'peace enforcement units', was intended to be directly under the Secretary-General's command. The context suggests these units would possess enhanced capabilities compared to traditional peacekeeping forces to effectively address more complex security challenges.
Similar Questions
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- The author attributes the growing public frustration with the UN primarily to which pair of continuous failures?
- A primary point of divergence between the US Conservative position and the Secretary-General's Conservative position on security matters, according to the summary is:
- According to the critique's conclusion, the immediate, insurmountable barrier preventing the implementation of any reform, major or minor, is:
- The Radical Approach to reform, as outlined in the summary, calls for an institutional overhaul of global economic governance by suggesting which two specific actions related to the Bretton Woods institutions?
- From the passage it is evident that:
- Which of the statements is true?
- Which of the following can be inferred as the most significant characteristic of prehistoric humans, as per the passage?
- Which of the following best explains why humans did not initially stand out among other organisms?
- According to the passage, what determines whether two animals belong to the same species?
Important Questions from Non Grammar
- In formulating Principle VI (a), the ILC clarified the term "waging of a war of aggression" because:
- The author attributes the growing public frustration with the UN primarily to which pair of continuous failures?
- A primary point of divergence between the US Conservative position and the Secretary-General's Conservative position on security matters, according to the summary is:
- According to the critique's conclusion, the immediate, insurmountable barrier preventing the implementation of any reform, major or minor, is:
- The Radical Approach to reform, as outlined in the summary, calls for an institutional overhaul of global economic governance by suggesting which two specific actions related to the Bretton Woods institutions?
