FREE ESSAY ON LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO THE UN UN

LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO THE UN UN

During the First World War several world leaders such as President of the United
States(U.S.) Woodrow Wilson and South African Prime Minster Jan Smuts, advocated the need
for an international organization that preserved peace and settled disputes by
arbitration. When peace negotiations began in October 1918,United States president
Woodrow Wilson insisted that his Fourteen Points serve as a basis for the signing of the
Armistice . The Armistice included the formation of the League of Nations (here after
refereed to as the League). And as the years went by the League grew to be a formidable
organization. It's goals and objectives were precise, they were to attain and maintain
world peace. By 1935 the League had declined severely. And In 1945 the League ended and
the United Nations (referred to as the UN) took its place. There were a lot of
similarities between the two organizations, however the differences were apparent as
well. Scholars have tried to ascertain why the League failed to achieve its goals. What
were declining factors? Moreover, is the UN a direct result of those factors with a few
modifications to satisfy the demands of the world today. The object of this paper to
analyze Whether the UN is a direct extension of the League and if so why or why not and
under what circumstance? 
By 1919 the idea of international co-operation was not new. There had been a few earlier
attempts, for example:
The International Red Cross in Geneva 1964; International Telegraph Union in 1865; The
International; Meteorological Organization in 1878 and the International Court, The Hague
in 1899. However, these were all unsuccessful attempts. So, by April 1919 the
constitution of the League was adopted in the Paris Peace Conference . The Aims of the
organization were to a) to keep peace and b) to improve living conditions of men and
women worldwide.
The League's Council consisted of the great powers
(Britain, France, Italy and Japan) of 1920 who sat on the council permanently. There were
three sanctions against a nation that the League took when any nation broke peace. The
sanctions they took were i) Moral sanction which was a polite warning; ii) Economic
sanction that was when the League stopped trading with the offender and iii); Military
sanction As a last resort the League would impose its will by force. No sanction could be
used if a nation used its veto. The idea was that collective action would produce
collective security, and thereby peace. These sanctions mentioned were ineffective in
cases such as Italy's action in Ethiopia (1935), Japan's attack on China (1937) and
Russia invasion of Finland (1939). The League's headquarters was located in Geneva and
its first Secretary General was Sir Eric Drummond. As a result of the decision by the US
Congress not to ratify the Versailles Treaty , the United States never joined the League
of Nations. Others nations such as Brazil, Japan, Germany, The former Soviet Union and
Italy joined the League but later left the organization . The League declined rapidly
from the mid 1930s to about 1945. After the Second World War, the responsibilities of the
League were handed over to the UN.
Despite the many difficulties encountered since the end of the Second World War, the
League's Council has played a significant role in the resolution of a number of
international disputes. Between its establishment in 1920 and 1 January 1935, the
League's Council examined a total of 76 questions on a verity of subjects ranging from
border disputes to the status of war refugees and from reparations payments to
disarmament. Of these questions, over 50 were eventually settled to the satisfaction of
all parties as the result of the League's Council action. A summary of the League's
successes in handling international disputes is too long to list, but the most salient
cases included
 A 1920 settlement between Sweden and Finland over the Aaland (Aland) Islands,
 A complicated Treaty of Versailles-related border dispute between newly created
Poland and Lithuania lasting from 1920-1923,
 The 1922 establishment of a joint administration between Germany and Poland over
the status of the territory and peoples of the resource-rich region of Upper Silesia
 A 1930 plan assuring the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Romania,
 Resolutions of 1925 flare-ups on the Greco-Bulgarian and Greco-Turkish
frontiers,
 A 1934 discussion of the dispute between China and Japan over Manchuria,
(Manchukuo) 
 Productive negotiations in two conflicts in South America, one between Colombia
and Peru and the other between Bolivia and Paraguay .
Regardless of these achievements listed above a lot of states felt that the League was a
complete and utter failure. They felt that the League failed to achieve its main goal and
objective, which was to attain and maintain world peace. The conflict in the world after
the Second World War immense, there was no world peace. The League did not attain peace
nor did the League maintain peace. States felt that there were some inherent problems
with the structure of the organization. Some states argued that considering the time in
which the League was created, it was bound to fail. No organization could stand the
rigorous demands of the world at that time. F.H Hinsley said The collapse of the League
was due to many factors, of which the early loss of the United States and the opposition
of Germany and Russia, because of the conditions of the League's origin and its close
relationship to the peace treaties, were of great importance. Without these influences
the League's effort to solve basic problems might have been more successful.  He felt
that this argument that the League's decline was a product of the global structure of the
world at that time was a concept not based in reality. The world was in an economic and
global chaos at the time, Germany was defiant against the League and its sanctions,
United States wanted isolation from European affairs, and France wanted security from the
possibility of a third German attack. Nevertheless, that was not the reason why the
League failed. This explanation mentioned above would demand belief that in order for an
organization to attain peace in the world, it required perfect tranquillity of the world.
This Hinsley felt was improbable . World peace is not dictated by the actions of the
world around us. If we want peace we must actively seek ways to resolve conflict. World
War I should have shown the states that conflict would always be there in the world, it
was how they resolved it that made any difference. Furthermore, augments that the
League's structural problems were the sole cause of its decline are not totally
accurate.
That is true that the League had structural problems, yes if the League had more
enforcement power it might have prevailed. Or if it had some way of ensuring that each
member fulfill their end of the obligation to a collective security things might have
been different. The structure of the League was formulated in a wrong manner. Even how it
conducted its voting policies was flawed. The covenant stated that procedural decisions
required only a simple majority, all substantive matters were decided by unanimous vote
and all the permanent member had agree. So if Russia got into a conflict that it felt
would hinder it's own interest it could refuse to vote. Also, the way the world was at
the time of construction, could the structure of any organization have handled that kind
of pressure? That answer is most likely "no". 
The last theory for the decline of the League is that it was misfortune. Had the League
not had so many misfortunate incidents where it failed to preserve peace it could have
succeeded. This argument is unsound. Misfortune is one thing, but ...if these particular
obstacles to success had not existed, others would have taken their place.  so the
argument that misfortune over one thing or another as the reason why the League declined
is inaccurate. The reason why the League declined so rapidly was because the
organization's concept at the time that League was created was less then favorable. After
World War I states could not believe such global devastation could take place. States
were determined to make sure that that kind of global mayhem never took place again. When
states such as the US and Russia discovered means to keep their own state governments
together they felt that could create a unified national government to do the same thing,
a sort of government of governments. F.H Hinsley put it best, he said, It is not always
evident that where there is a will there is way.  Moreover, that was how the some state
felt. Most of them felt that if they just put their wills together they could come up
with the perfect organization to attain and maintain peace in the world. This concept
while well intended was not based on the reality of the world. Putting wills together to
come up with the perfect government is not proof that that government will work. Another
thing that these states failed to realize was the thought that some states might not want
to participate in this government of governments. Thus, the organizational concept behind
the League's creations had good intention but the execution was poor. This kind of
thought process by the states mentioned above is some of the reasons why the League came
began to decline by 1935. 
The League was still operational on paper until the actual date of the creation of the UN
in 1945. President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the name United Nations, in 1941 to
describe the countries fighting against the Axis . The UN officially became operational
on January 1st 1942, when 26 states joined in to swear a declaration to the United
Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war for the pursuit of peace and not
to try to peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace League
was first stated officially on October 30th 1943, in the Moscow in a declaration issued
by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR. At the Dumbarton Oaks
Conference of August and October of 1944, those four countries drafted specific proposals
for a charter for the new organization, and at the Yalta Conference in 1945. Further
agreement was reached that all the states that had ultimately adhered to the 1942
declaration and had declared war on Germany or Japan by March 1st 1945 were called to the
founding conference held in San Francisco April 25th June and 26th 1945. Drafted at San
Francisco, the UN charter was signed on June 26th 1945 and ratified by the required
number of states on October 24th 1945. The General Assembly first met in London on
January 10th 1946. Then at that time it was decided by the state involved to re-locate
the UN headquarters to the United States in December of 1946. The original vision for the
organization and cold war realities showed states that the UN had evolved naturally just
as the first organization international organization did. 
Originally the UN was composed largely mainly European countries, Commonwealth Countries,
and Nations of the Americas. It was conceived as an organization of "peace-loving"
nations, who were combining to prevent future aggression and for other humanitarian
purposes. In this Essence it was not unlike the League of Nations. Close cooperation
among members was expected; the Security Council especially was expected to work in
relative unanimity. 
There are several instances of cooperation with the United States by other powers that
allowed the UN to succeed in restoration or preservation peace.
These included a) the settlement (1946) of the complaint of Syria and Lebanon that France
and Great Britain were illegally occupying their territory. b) The UN's concern over the
Arab-Israeli conflicts. The UN continues to strive for a just and lasting peace. c) The
fighting over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. d) The withdrawal of the Dutch from
Indonesia. e) The Turmoil over the former Yugoslavia troubles. I.e. Kosovo crises. f) The
Occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. g) The Peace keeping process of Northern Ireland.
h) In 1993 In Afghanistan, the UN Special Mission worked to facilitate national
reconciliation and reconstruction needed as a result of the country's protracted civil
war.
i) And the UN's campaign against apartheid in South Africa 
are just a few of its amazing achievements .
The lists of achievements by the UN are enormous that they can't all be listed.
Notwithstanding, that the UN but the UN has had its share of difficulties. For instance
in reaction to the limitations that the cold war imposed on the UN Security Council, the
United States, Britain, France, and other nations tried to develop the General Assembly
beyond its original scope. In the assembly the United States and Great Britain had strong
support from among the Commonwealth countries and Latin American countries and generally
commanded a majority. Of more importance were procedures evolved in the Korean crisis in
1950. At that time the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN Security Council because of the
UN's refusal to admit the People's Republic of China as a member. Since the USSR was not
present to cast a veto, the Security Council was enabled to establish armed forces to
repel the North Korean attack on South Korea. Thus, at a time when the young organization
had begun to seem politically sterile, the veto paralyzed the council. Although the
assembly has convened a few times under this situation, its authority to require action
by members has remained vague, and it has never really developed workable enforcement
machinery. Another problem encountered by was that, some states were not so open to UN
intervention. Some states liked the intervention however; this was only where world
opinion and great power responsiveness favored it. Example of this is in the struggle for
independence in Morocco, Algeria, and elsewhere, the ruling colonial powers claimed these
conflicts to be domestic. With their seats on the Security Council they were in a
position to veto assembly resolutions, and with the official governments of rebellious
territories under their control they were enabled to forestall UN intervention. That is
the reason why there are several reforms going in the UN today. States are trying to get
the UN to match its objectives with out intervention witch is Implausible. 
Of course these are just a few tribulations that the UN is encountering. Over all the UN
is an outstanding organization. The UN has become an achievement of these modern times.
Example of the UN in its laurels is in late 1998, there were 16 operations deploying
about 14,347 UN military and civilian police personnel. The number of personnel was down
considerably from the peak of 80,000 reached in 1993. At that time, of 14 operations, 3
(in Cambodia, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia) accounted for some 63,000 uniformed
personnel, or 80 per cent of the total. In contrast, the number of operations has
remained relatively steady over a number of years, varying between 14 and 17 at any one
time. These include several long running operations, such as those in Cyprus and in Jammu
and Kashmir, whose presence is seen as essential despite the seemingly intractable nature
of the conflicts. In 1998, new operations were established in the Central African
Republic and in Sierra Leone. The number of countries volunteering uniformed personnel
has also remained steady at about 75. In total, 118 countries have provided military and
civilian police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations. UN peacekeepers increasingly
support peace efforts and help alleviate suffering in civil wars and ethnic conflicts. UN
peacekeepers increasingly cooperate with other partners, UN agencies and non-governmental
organizations, in their efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. UN peacekeeping continues
to play a crucial role in helping the international community resolve conflict. It
remains the pre-eminent symbol of international cooperation and a catalyst for peaceful
settlement of disputes today. Some say unlike its predecessor the League; the UN has made
positive strides. There are obvious differences between the two. Yet, there are some
similarities.
Some similarities between the two organizations is their goals and objectives:
1. They both want to maintain international peace and security, and to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to that peace. Also to
suppress any acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. Or to try and bring about
by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and internal law,
adjustment or settlement of international dispute situations which might lead to a breach
of peace.
2. They both want to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other
appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving internal problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion. And yet neither of them has really achieved these objectives. 
4. Another similarity is its structure. This is not to say that the UN and the League
have the same organizational structure, on the contrary, it is stating that UN has
structural problems similar to that of the League. The League had problems adapting to
the World around it the turmoil etc. An example is they had an organization that they
thought would work if they had a Security Council that gave sanctions. However, what they
failed to realize was that the sanctions were based on the thought that states would
listen to the council. The UN has trouble adapting to the world around it too. It
believes that it can take some of the powers away from the Sate sovereignty by using
force and intervention. What it fails to realize just like the League did is that states
are going to want their independence without the interference of any foreign involvement.

The Difference in the two organizations was also apparent. For instance, Procedural
application of plans was a different between the League and the UN. The UN was set up
with an organizational structure in mind, while the League was set up like collection of
governments. This is to say that the League was simply a group of individuals looking out
for peace but with there own agendas in mind. Enforcement Power is yet another key
difference between The League and the UN. League did not have enforcement power where as
the UN does. This is because of the critical addition of US to the UN. Most of the UN's
enforcement power comes from the US. In that however some States see the US as a world
policeman. Even though the US is not the only county that donates its troops. Another
major difference between the UN and the League is the expanded role of the secretariat
and the Sectary Generals Office. The secretariat has made various advances since its
creation in the League. The League the secretariat did not have direct access to the
public in all the countries in the world. Now, with help of the media public access is
possible for the UN. The position between both organizations is yet another difference
between them. The UN position of "...secretary General, Unlike it's predecessor in the
League, was explicitly empowered to bring the organization's Attention to any matter
witch might endanger peace and security ." the League position of Secretary General did
not empower it to do anything. 
These changes have caused an effect to the growing membership to the UN counsel. By the
late 1950s the UN was being revolutionized by a change in membership. Since then the UN
has been a steadily growing. But new membership was shortly blocked by East-West rivalry
. Each side was antagonistic to admission of new members unfavorable to its views, and as
non-Communist countries outnumbered Communist ones. The USSR was especially intransigent,
from 1947 to 1955 only Yemen (1947), Pakistan (1947), Myanmar (1948), Israel (1949), and
Indonesia (1950) gained admission. The way to a compromise was led by Canada in 1955; 16
new members were admitted in that year, and thereafter expansion was rapid. 
Having analyzed and looked at the Histories and objectives of both organizations as well
as the effect of the switch. Is there a link? Yes there is. The evidence is overwhelming
to show that one can safely deduct that the UN is indeed an extension of the League. They
have similarities as well as differences the UN has enforcement power that League dose
not. The League secretariat doses not have the same power as that it successor. The
League has that same goals and objectives as the UN. For instance trying to preserve and
maintain peace etc. They way that both organization were constructed was different. That
is to say the thought process behind that creation of the League was different from the
thought process from the creation of the UN. And the structure and achievement were
different, but considering the time in which the League was created it was not entirely
to blame for demise. However, the key factors that links these two organizations is the
need. There was a need for renovation after the World War II, the need for more peace,
the need for enforcement power, the need for change. Now does this mean that when that UN
dose not satisfy the needs of the world at this time there will be a change? Maybe, that
is another question entirely. However, the evidence will show that even down to the
structure of the office positions in the UN, there is a direct link taken undeviatingly
from the League. Thus the UN is indeed a direct extension of the League. 
The League, the UN the Future?
By
Sani C. Anekwe
December 16, 2000
During the First World War several world leaders such as President of the United
States(U.S.) Woodrow Wilson and South African Prime Minster Jan Smuts, advocated the need
for an international organization that preserved peace and settled disputes by
arbitration. When peace negotiations began in October 1918,United States president
Woodrow Wilson insisted that his Fourteen Points serve as a basis for the signing of the
Armistice . The Armistice included the formation of the League of Nations (here after
refereed to as the League). And as the years went by the League grew to be a formidable
organization. It's goals and objectives were precise, they were to attain and maintain
world peace. By 1935 the League had declined severely. And In 1945 the League ended and
the United Nations (referred to as the UN) took its place. There were a lot of
similarities between the two organizations, however the differences were apparent as
well. Scholars have tried to ascertain why the League failed to achieve its goals. What
were declining factors? Moreover, is the UN a direct result of those factors with a few
modifications to satisfy the demands of the world today. The object of this paper to
analyze Whether the UN is a direct extension of the League and if so why or why not and
under what circumstance? 
By 1919 the idea of international co-operation was not new. There had been a few earlier
attempts, for example:
The International Red Cross in Geneva 1964; International Telegraph Union in 1865; The
International; Meteorological Organization in 1878 and the International Court, The Hague
in 1899. However, these were all unsuccessful attempts. So, by April 1919 the
constitution of the League was adopted in the Paris Peace Conference . The Aims of the
organization were to a) to keep peace and b) to improve living conditions of men and
women worldwide.
The League's Council consisted of the great powers
(Britain, France, Italy and Japan) of 1920 who sat on the council permanently. There were
three sanctions against a nation that the League took when any nation broke peace. The
sanctions they took were i) Moral sanction which was a polite warning; ii) Economic
sanction that was when the League stopped trading with the offender and iii); Military
sanction As a last resort the League would impose its will by force. No sanction could be
used if a nation used its veto. The idea was that collective action would produce
collective security, and thereby peace. These sanctions mentioned were ineffective in
cases such as Italy's action in Ethiopia (1935), Japan's attack on China (1937) and
Russia invasion of Finland (1939). The League's headquarters was located in Geneva and
its first Secretary General was Sir Eric Drummond. As a result of the decision by the US
Congress not to ratify the Versailles Treaty , the United States never joined the League
of Nations. Others nations such as Brazil, Japan, Germany, The former Soviet Union and
Italy joined the League but later left the organization . The League declined rapidly
from the mid 1930s to about 1945. After the Second World War, the responsibilities of the
League were handed over to the UN.
Despite the many difficulties encountered since the end of the Second World War, the
League's Council has played a significant role in the resolution of a number of
international disputes. Between its establishment in 1920 and 1 January 1935, the
League's Council examined a total of 76 questions on a verity of subjects ranging from
border disputes to the status of war refugees and from reparations payments to
disarmament. Of these questions, over 50 were eventually settled to the satisfaction of
all parties as the result of the League's Council action. A summary of the League's
successes in handling international disputes is too long to list, but the most salient
cases included
 A 1920 settlement between Sweden and Finland over the Aaland (Aland) Islands,
 A complicated Treaty of Versailles-related border dispute between newly created
Poland and Lithuania lasting from 1920-1923,
 The 1922 establishment of a joint administration between Germany and Poland over
the status of the territory and peoples of the resource-rich region of Upper Silesia
 A 1930 plan assuring the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Romania,
 Resolutions of 1925 flare-ups on the Greco-Bulgarian and Greco-Turkish
frontiers,
 A 1934 discussion of the dispute between China and Japan over Manchuria,
(Manchukuo) 
 Productive negotiations in two conflicts in South America, one between Colombia
and Peru and the other between Bolivia and Paraguay .
Regardless of these achievements listed above a lot of states felt that the League was a
complete and utter failure. They felt that the League failed to achieve its main goal and
objective, which was to attain and maintain world peace. The conflict in the world after
the Second World War immense, there was no world peace. The League did not attain peace
nor did the League maintain peace. States felt that there were some inherent problems
with the structure of the organization. Some states argued that considering the time in
which the League was created, it was bound to fail. No organization could stand the
rigorous demands of the world at that time. F.H Hinsley said The collapse of the League
was due to many factors, of which the early loss of the United States and the opposition
of Germany and Russia, because of the conditions of the League's origin and its close
relationship to the peace treaties, were of great importance. Without these influences
the League's effort to solve basic problems might have been more successful.  He felt
that this argument that the League's decline was a product of the global structure of the
world at that time was a concept not based in reality. The world was in an economic and
global chaos at the time, Germany was defiant against the League and its sanctions,
United States wanted isolation from European affairs, and France wanted security from the
possibility of a third German attack. Nevertheless, that was not the reason why the
League failed. This explanation mentioned above would demand belief that in order for an
organization to attain peace in the world, it required perfect tranquillity of the world.
This Hinsley felt was improbable . World peace is not dictated by the actions of the
world around us. If we want peace we must actively seek ways to resolve conflict. World
War I should have shown the states that conflict would always be there in the world, it
was how they resolved it that made any difference. Furthermore, augments that the
League's structural problems were the sole cause of its decline are not totally
accurate.
That is true that the League had structural problems, yes if the League had more
enforcement power it might have prevailed. Or if it had some way of ensuring that each
member fulfill their end of the obligation to a collective security things might have
been different. The structure of the League was formulated in a wrong manner. Even how it
conducted its voting policies was flawed. The covenant stated that procedural decisions
required only a simple majority, all substantive matters were decided by unanimous vote
and all the permanent member had agree. So if Russia got into a conflict that it felt
would hinder it's own interest it could refuse to vote. Also, the way the world was at
the time of construction, could the structure of any organization have handled that kind
of pressure? That answer is most likely "no". 
The last theory for the decline of the League is that it was misfortune. Had the League
not had so many misfortunate incidents where it failed to preserve peace it could have
succeeded. This argument is unsound. Misfortune is one thing, but ...if these particular
obstacles to success had not existed, others would have taken their place.  so the
argument that misfortune over one thing or another as the reason why the League declined
is inaccurate. The reason why the League declined so rapidly was because the
organization's concept at the time that League was created was less then favorable. After
World War I states could not believe such global devastation could take place. States
were determined to make sure that that kind of global mayhem never took place again. When
states such as the US and Russia discovered means to keep their own state governments
together they felt that could create a unified national government to do the same thing,
a sort of government of governments. F.H Hinsley put it best, he said, It is not always
evident that where there is a will there is way.  Moreover, that was how the some state
felt. Most of them felt that if they just put their wills together they could come up
with the perfect organization to attain and maintain peace in the world. This concept
while well intended was not based on the reality of the world. Putting wills together to
come up with the perfect government is not proof that that government will work. Another
thing that these states failed to realize was the thought that some states might not want
to participate in this government of governments. Thus, the organizational concept behind
the League's creations had good intention but the execution was poor. This kind of
thought process by the states mentioned above is some of the reasons why the League came
began to decline by 1935. 
The League was still operational on paper until the actual date of the creation of the UN
in 1945. President Franklin D. Roosevelt coined the name United Nations, in 1941 to
describe the countries fighting against the Axis . The UN officially became operational
on January 1st 1942, when 26 states joined in to swear a declaration to the United
Nations, pledging themselves to continue their joint war for the pursuit of peace and not
to try to peace separately. The need for an international organization to replace League
was first stated officially on October 30th 1943, in the Moscow in a declaration issued
by China, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSR. At the Dumbarton Oaks
Conference of August and October of 1944, those four countries drafted specific proposals
for a charter for the new organization, and at the Yalta Conference in 1945. Further
agreement was reached that all the states that had ultimately adhered to the 1942
declaration and had declared war on Germany or Japan by March 1st 1945 were called to the
founding conference held in San Francisco April 25th June and 26th 1945. Drafted at San
Francisco, the UN charter was signed on June 26th 1945 and ratified by the required
number of states on October 24th 1945. The General Assembly first met in London on
January 10th 1946. Then at that time it was decided by the state involved to re-locate
the UN headquarters to the United States in December of 1946. The original vision for the
organization and cold war realities showed states that the UN had evolved naturally just
as the first organization international organization did. 
Originally the UN was composed largely mainly European countries, Commonwealth Countries,
and Nations of the Americas. It was conceived as an organization of "peace-loving"
nations, who were combining to prevent future aggression and for other humanitarian
purposes. In this Essence it was not unlike the League of Nations. Close cooperation
among members was expected; the Security Council especially was expected to work in
relative unanimity. 
There are several instances of cooperation with the United States by other powers that
allowed the UN to succeed in restoration or preservation peace.
These included a) the settlement (1946) of the complaint of Syria and Lebanon that France
and Great Britain were illegally occupying their territory. b) The UN's concern over the
Arab-Israeli conflicts. The UN continues to strive for a just and lasting peace. c) The
fighting over Kashmir between India and Pakistan. d) The withdrawal of the Dutch from
Indonesia. e) The Turmoil over the former Yugoslavia troubles. I.e. Kosovo crises. f) The
Occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. g) The Peace keeping process of Northern Ireland.
h) In 1993 In Afghanistan, the UN Special Mission worked to facilitate national
reconciliation and reconstruction needed as a result of the country's protracted civil
war.
i) And the UN's campaign against apartheid in South Africa 
are just a few of its amazing achievements .
The lists of achievements by the UN are enormous that they can't all be listed.
Notwithstanding, that the UN but the UN has had its share of difficulties. For instance
in reaction to the limitations that the cold war imposed on the UN Security Council, the
United States, Britain, France, and other nations tried to develop the General Assembly
beyond its original scope. In the assembly the United States and Great Britain had strong
support from among the Commonwealth countries and Latin American countries and generally
commanded a majority. Of more importance were procedures evolved in the Korean crisis in
1950. At that time the Soviet Union was boycotting the UN Security Council because of the
UN's refusal to admit the People's Republic of China as a member. Since the USSR was not
present to cast a veto, the Security Council was enabled to establish armed forces to
repel the North Korean attack on South Korea. Thus, at a time when the young organization
had begun to seem politically sterile, the veto paralyzed the council. Although the
assembly has convened a few times under this situation, its authority to require action
by members has remained vague, and it has never really developed workable enforcement
machinery. Another problem encountered by was that, some states were not so open to UN
intervention. Some states liked the intervention however; this was only where world
opinion and great power responsiveness favored it. Example of this is in the struggle for
independence in Morocco, Algeria, and elsewhere, the ruling colonial powers claimed these
conflicts to be domestic. With their seats on the Security Council they were in a
position to veto assembly resolutions, and with the official governments of rebellious
territories under their control they were enabled to forestall UN intervention. That is
the reason why there are several reforms going in the UN today. States are trying to get
the UN to match its objectives with out intervention witch is Implausible. 
Of course these are just a few tribulations that the UN is encountering. Over all the UN
is an outstanding organization. The UN has become an achievement of these modern times.
Example of the UN in its laurels is in late 1998, there were 16 operations deploying
about 14,347 UN military and civilian police personnel. The number of personnel was down
considerably from the peak of 80,000 reached in 1993. At that time, of 14 operations, 3
(in Cambodia, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia) accounted for some 63,000 uniformed
personnel, or 80 per cent of the total. In contrast, the number of operations has
remained relatively steady over a number of years, varying between 14 and 17 at any one
time. These include several long running operations, such as those in Cyprus and in Jammu
and Kashmir, whose presence is seen as essential despite the seemingly intractable nature
of the conflicts. In 1998, new operations were established in the Central African
Republic and in Sierra Leone. The number of countries volunteering uniformed personnel
has also remained steady at about 75. In total, 118 countries have provided military and
civilian police personnel to UN peacekeeping operations. UN peacekeepers increasingly
support peace efforts and help alleviate suffering in civil wars and ethnic conflicts. UN
peacekeepers increasingly cooperate with other partners, UN agencies and non-governmental
organizations, in their efforts to rebuild war-torn societies. UN peacekeeping continues
to play a crucial role in helping the international community resolve conflict. It
remains the pre-eminent symbol of international cooperation and a catalyst for peaceful
settlement of disputes today. Some say unlike its predecessor the League; the UN has made
positive strides. There are obvious differences between the two. Yet, there are some
similarities.
Some similarities between the two organizations is their goals and objectives:
1. They both want to maintain international peace and security, and to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to that peace. Also to
suppress any acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace. Or to try and bring about
by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and internal law,
adjustment or settlement of international dispute situations which might lead to a breach
of peace.
2. They both want to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self determination of peoples, and to take other
appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 
3. To achieve international cooperation in solving internal problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion. And yet neither of them has really achieved these objectives. 
4. Another similarity is its structure. This is not to say that the UN and the League
have the same organizational structure, on the contrary, it is stating that UN has
structural problems similar to that of the League. The League had problems adapting to
the World around it the turmoil etc. An example is they had an organization that they
thought would work if they had a Security Council that gave sanctions. However, what they
failed to realize was that the sanctions were based on the thought that states would
listen to the council. The UN has trouble adapting to the world around it too. It
believes that it can take some of the powers away from the Sate sovereignty by using
force and intervention. What it fails to realize just like the League did is that states
are going to want their independence without the interference of any foreign involvement.

The Difference in the two organizations was also apparent. For instance, Procedural
application of plans was a different between the League and the UN. The UN was set up
with an organizational structure in mind, while the League was set up like collection of
governments. This is to say that the League was simply a group of individuals looking out
for peace but with there own agendas in mind. Enforcement Power is yet another key
difference between The League and the UN. League did not have enforcement power where as
the UN does. This is because of the critical addition of US to the UN. Most of the UN's
enforcement power comes from the US. In that however some States see the US as a world
policeman. Even though the US is not the only county that donates its troops. Another
major difference between the UN and the League is the expanded role of the secretariat
and the Sectary Generals Office. The secretariat has made various advances since its
creation in the League. The League the secretariat did not have direct access to the
public in all the countries in the world. Now, with help of the media public access is
possible for the UN. The position between both organizations is yet another difference
between them. The UN position of "...secretary General, Unlike it's predecessor in the
League, was explicitly empowered to bring the organization's Attention to any matter
witch might endanger peace and security ." the League position of Secretary General did
not empower it to do anything. 
These changes have caused an effect to the growing membership to the UN counsel. By the
late 1950s the UN was being revolutionized by a change in membership. Since then the UN
has been a steadily growing. But new membership was shortly blocked by East-West rivalry
. Each side was antagonistic to admission of new members unfavorable to its views, and as
non-Communist countries outnumbered Communist ones. The USSR was especially intransigent,
from 1947 to 1955 only Yemen (1947), Pakistan (1947), Myanmar (1948), Israel (1949), and
Indonesia (1950) gained admission. The way to a compromise was led by Canada in 1955; 16
new members were admitted in that year, and thereafter expansion was rapid. 
Having analyzed and looked at the Histories and objectives of both organizations as well
as the effect of the switch. Is there a link? Yes there is. The evidence is overwhelming
to show that one can safely deduct that the UN is indeed an extension of the League. They
have similarities as well as differences the UN has enforcement power that League dose
not. The League secretariat doses not have the same power as that it successor. The
League has that same goals and objectives as the UN. For instance trying to preserve and
maintain peace etc. They way that both organization were constructed was different. That
is to say the thought process behind that creation of the League was different from the
thought process from the creation of the UN. And the structure and achievement were
different, but considering the time in which the League was created it was not entirely
to blame for demise. However, the key factors that links these two organizations is the
need. There was a need for renovation after the World War II, the need for more peace,
the need for enforcement power, the need for change. Now does this mean that when that UN
dose not satisfy the needs of the world at this time there will be a change? Maybe, that
is another question entirely. However, the evidence will show that even down to the
structure of the office positions in the UN, there is a direct link taken undeviatingly
from the League. Thus the UN is indeed a direct extension of the League. 
Bibliography
Bibliography
- Hinsley, F.H. Power and Pursuit of Peace. The University Press: Cambridge 1963.
- Meisler, Stanley. United Nations-The First Fifty Years. The Atlanta Monthly Press: New
York 1995.
- Anonymous, Netscape.com, An Oral History Account of the Founding of the United Nations.
http//:www.yale.edu/...no/oral_histrory.html (Sept. 2000)
- Anonymous, Hotbot.com, The Basic Facts About the United Nations, 
http//: www.hotbot .com/history/ facts/UN. html. 
(May, 2000)
- Anonymous, Hotbot.com, The Basic Facts about the League of nation Nations, 
http//: www.hotbot .com/history/ facts/league. html. 
(May, 1999)