Essay: The United Nations is fundamentally a revived League of nations

While the idea of co-operating for the greatest good between distinct groups is not new, the League of Nations and the United Nations are the only two international organisations concerned and designed with international and national security in mind. This suggests that these two bodies should have a plethora of similarities. I will be arguing that these two organisations follow the same general structures and rules, and that the United Nations is fundamentally a revived League of nations, only with improvements.
The League of Nations was founded on the 10th of January 1919, after four long years of world war. It was an organisation formed by the five main superpowers of the time – Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the United States of America – after they defeated the Central Powers. It was the first of its kind in respect to its purpose – maintaining world peace. In pursuit of this goal, the League had mixed success, and ultimately failed when World War Two broke out.
In 1941, United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his State of the Union Address in Congress, now dubbed the Four Freedoms Speech. This speech detailed the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear. On the 1st of January 1942, the leaders of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the USSR and China signed the United Nations Declaration, followed by twenty-two other nations the next day. 26th of June 1945, the UN Charter was signed, heavily influenced by Roosevelt. This Charter was an accumulation of the work of fifty nation states and founded the United Nations, and shared core principles with Roosevelt’s speech. Like the League of Nations, the United Nations is an international organisation with the aim of preventing and stopping war among other things. Now, the UN has 191 nation state members and has had varying success in its humanitarian exploits.
In 1918, the Allies of the first world war gathered at the Peace Conference in Paris. The focus of this meeting was to script a treaty which would end the conflict between Germany and the Allied Alliance. President Woodrow Wilson of the United States of America was given the position of Chairman of the Committee which was tasked with delivering the rules and regulations of the early League. Wilson had what can be seen as a manifesto – his fourteen points. One of these points called for “A general association of nations … formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” While President Wilson inspired the creation of the League of Nations, it failed to adopt his other points, ideas that would need enforcement.
As previously mentioned, the League of Nations had an issue with the actual enforcement of discipline onto its member states. One example of this was the Manchurian crisis in 1932. While the League’s covenant accounted for a situation like this, they did not account for the aggressor, Japan, to just depart from the League. Japan did this after being ordered to leave Manchuria in China, but they refused. This resulted in little to no consequence, due to the fact that many member states had trading links with Japan and could not agree on any sanctions. This case was not isolated, the League also failed Abyssinia when Italy invaded. While the League did in fact impose sanctions on Italy, these were largely disregarded, and Italy left the league. This shows a vital weakness of the league; nation states were still far more concerned with national security rather than international. On the other hand, the United Nations learned from their predecessor and the outbreak of World War Two. Trade sanctions are now taken more seriously, having been effectively implemented in Haiti, Iraq, Liberia and very effectively Serbia. The Security Council also has the ability to authorise the use of armed force in retaliation to an event they might consider a threat. An example of when this was done effectively was the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. Both bodies positioned humanitarianism at the forefront of its efforts, and attempted at all possible points to prevent conflict. The failure of the League of Nations to protect Manchuria and Abyssinia proves that while the United Nations may seem like a reincarnation, the UN is far superior not only in its enforcement, but in its integrity.
The League of Nations set out to become a universal power to stop a repeat of the First World War, however, one of its main issues was its own members. The League came into being during the formation of the Treaty of Versailles. It has been argued that the Treaty was wholly unfair and punishment towards Germany for the war. This idea can be supported by the fact that Germany was not allowed to join the League of Nations until years later. Another factor that weakened the League of Nations was that although Woodrow Wilson had been the one to push for its creation, the United States of America never joined. This was, among other things, due to the fact that many Americans didn’t agree with his decision to enter the war, and that the isolationist mindset of this period had stuck. Exclusion of states, voluntary or involuntary, makes it impossible for the League of Nations to maintain world peace, since those involved in conflict weren’t necessarily members. The United Nations, learning from its predecessor, has been massively more inclusive. Currently, there are 193 member states, just over three times the amount that the League of Nations had at its most. This is a factor in the greater success that the UN has had in the goal of preserving world peace. All of that being said, the League tried to incorporate more members, showing the shared value of inclusion for the betterment of humanity between the two institutes.
In 1921, Sweden and Finland both lay claim to the Åland Islands, a small cluster of islands between them. On Åland, the majority of those who lived there spoke Swedish. However, the Islands were also once a part of mainland Finland, and once Sweden gave over Finland to Russia after defeat, the Islands remained Finnish. After much protest by Finland, this issue was brought to the League of Nations to resolve. The League found in favour of Finland and the matter was settled peacefully. In 1925, after many years of conflict, the King of Greece had been deposed by Lieutenant General Theodoros Pangalos. He ordered Bulgaria to pay, apologise and punish those who were responsible for the fight or to be invaded. However, the Bulgarians did not want to do this, so appealed to the League. The league decided that the Greeks were to leave Bulgaria and pay £45,000 in compensation for deaths. These are two of the notable successes that the League had in regard to humanitarian efforts. Although they were effective in both preventing and halting conflict in the previous examples, the League didn’t manage to stop World War Two. This is because the anti-war measures that were in place were nothing more than promises and mutual assurance. As mentioned earlier, the Italians and the Japanese broke these with no hesitation. This is to be blamed on the weakness of the League in regard to the previously mentioned sanctions. The United Nations currently has 14 peacekeeping missions around the world, with 102,910 personnel serving and 124 countries contributing. Throughout its lifetime, the UN has executed 71 operations. On top of that, the UN had peacefully negotiated 172 peace treaties. Most notably, the UN introduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the first international deal of its nature. The UDHR, although not a binding document in itself, has set a standard for member states to follow, and has given rise to multiple major treaties. These include The International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (1965) and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) among many others. The nature of the work done by both international organisations is very alike in nature. The difference here lies in the execution of the aid given. The League of Nations failed financially before it even started, failing to set up a framework where an organisation of its own size would be able to effectively manage its finances. The United Nations releases yearly budgets, while the League experienced multiple debates about who should even conduct audits. This speaks to both transparency and reliability of those involved respectively.
Although the League of Nations fell, the United Nations wouldn’t be possible without the trial and error experience it provided. In addition, they both attempted to attain the same goal – international security – among other things, with fluctuating levels of success. Similarities in the type of work prioritised are numerous, from the League’s work on human trafficking to the UN’s work on Human Rights. The League is often referred to as the predecessor to the UN, and the United Nations is essentially a revived League of Nations, albeit much more efficient and sophisticated.
2019-2-13-1550087535