Effectiveness of UN Sanctions

From the inner quirks and hallway politics of the Security Council to the extensive and bureaucratic machinations involved in Ecosoc and NGOs, the UN as a whole is an intricate web of aspirations, optimistic endeavors, reluctant abdications, and abject failures. The stated goals of the United Nations are above all an ideal.

It is both admirable and desirable for the UN to seek to accomplish its goal of perpetuating international peace and security. However, the founders knew from the onset that every part of the UN would have to be a compromise between the Wilsonian ideals associated with the League of Nations and the emotionless calculations of realism.

Today's UN is no different. Take the recent sanction against North Korea this June following the DPRK's missile launches. Though enforcement seems feasible, there has been little success in stopping North Korean weapons exportation. The recent seizure of 10 containers of an arms shipment is a good sign.

That the seizure occurred several weeks ago and did not cause a flare-up in the rhetoric of the DPRK is also a good sign. There are several aspects of the seizure, however, that bear consideration:

First, the threat of war from North Korea should an American ship intercept a ship bound to or from North Korea under the new sanction limits American actions. Because of this, the UN resolution, though binding, is without much of its power. Second, the fact that the arms were headed for Iran, another international pariah, speaks to the effectiveness of UN sanctions.

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
-John F. Kennedy

The Right Words

Few among the leaders of any country posses the antique skill of oratory. Few politicians or businessmen drive policy and the future through the strength of their performance behind the rostrum. But when a leader comes forward who can move people with words, who can turn the malcontent into supporters, give the saddened new hope, or put the strength of righteousness into believers, that leader rises to the top.

However, there is no guarantee that any great orator will use the skill for good. The world is not as simple as fiction or pundits would make it, and there is no easy slogan to drive popular opinion in the right way. With the amount of information available to any person with access to the internet, no politician can get away with saying things that are completely unsubstantiated for long. On the other hand, with the amount of information available, a politician who can give people shivers down their spines with the first syllable can get away with saying almost anything.

Evoking the emotions of a nation through oratory raises the stakes on issues both mundane and MAD. It is easy to repeat and whitewash small details into news fiascoes, drawing attention from what matters. The tools of any leader are greatly enhanced by the ability to stand and look a crowd and a camera in the eye and give them something in which they can believe. However, an orator is responsible for the effects of his or her words, and must be careful to use only The Right Words

“There is nothing in the world like a persuasive speech to fuddle the mental apparatus and upset the convictions and debauch the emotions of an audience not practiced in the tricks and delusions of oratory”

Mark Twain

Oil; Part One of Many

Deciding to go to war is the most significant decision a nation can make. The rise of total war has given conflict the potential to encompass all aspects of a nation. Likewise, the dramatic increases in globalization in the past few decades have made economic interconnectedness a facet of everyday life for developed nations. The complexity of the modern world demands that nations develop long-term strategies for maximizing political and economic wellbeing. 

When contemplating the use of military force, the weight of innumerable factors all come to bear.  No political schema is free of the subtleties politics of state. No matter if you are Kim Jong-Il or Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama or Felipe Calderon, war is no simple decision of yes or no.

Why did Japan choose to go to war in the Pacific, and finally against the United States in 1941?  The answer is elusive, and every explanation seems to either leave out important facts, or skew them to suit a particular political theory.

Uniquivocally, however, at the very core of Japan's decision, was it's lack of abundant natural resources.  Above all of its material needs sat one specter: Oil. 

Victory [in war] is the beautiful, bright-coloured flower. Transport is the stem without which it could never have blossomed. (1899)

— Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

In The River War (2004), 87.