What should be the priority for the UN: peace and security or economic and social development? This question is at the core of the debate between developing countries, which of course privilege the development alternative, and developed countries, which are reluctant to tackle that costly issue. To go beyond the political interests at stake, we have to wonder, which, between peace and security, on the one side, or economic and social development on the other, holds out a greater promise for world prosperity.
The pillars of the UN
International peace and security, and economic and social development are the two pillars of the UN mission. �To maintain international peace and security� and �to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian character� are two of the four purposes of the organization (Article 1 of the Charter). The Security Council is principally in charge of the first pillar and the General Assembly and the ECOSOC1 deals with the second.
Actually, the primary purpose of the UN is to maintain peace and security since its founders feared a hypothetical World War III. The Security Council is therefore the most powerful organ and in 1999, the budget of the UN excluding peacekeeping, was only $1,190 billions whereas, the estimated peacekeeping budget was alone $860 millions.2
The failure of the international economic and social co-operation
Numerous programs (technical assistance programs, development-financing programs through the World Bank Group) have been implemented to help developing countries. Nevertheless, the gap between the poorest and the richest countries has grown. To explain this failure, lots of reasons are evoked but the deficiency of the ECOSOC is striking since economic and social development was in deed the mission of this organ.
The difficulty to maintain international peace and security
It is undeniable that the UN has done a lot for international peace and security; as an example, the collective action in the Korean War in 1953, the sanctions against South Africa during the Apartheid were efficient. Nevertheless, new kind of violent conflicts are challenging the UN. The inefficiency of the organization in Kosovo, and the divisions about the sanctions against Iraq question the ability of the UN to handle conflicts even though the cold war is ended.
***
Does peace lead to development or does development lead to peace?
For the world prosperity both economical and social development are needed. However, if a priority should be set, we have to wonder if by addressing one of the issues, we could address both of them. The answer could lie in the statements of Boutros Boutros-Ghali3 : �Peace can be seen as essential , for without some degree of peace, neither development nor democracy is possible. Yet both development are essential if peace is to endure.� The will to maintain peace is a based on status quo and on the fear of war, whereas economic development is a positive and a long-term approach which responds better to the notion of prosperity. In this long-term approach, wars are considered as punctual problems and are not the main issues.
New kinds of conflicts
The founders of the UN feared international conflicts that involved external aggression. The present conflicts are much complex: they encompass struggles within states, local insurrections or ethnic violence. Iraq�s aggression on Kuwait in 1990 is a striking exception. According to Boutros Boutros-Ghali4 �post-conflict peace building� should encompass among other humanitarian relief, monitoring elections, and advancing efforts to promote human rights. This shift to a social approach shows the limit of a strictly military approach, which is not any more possible.
The frustration of developing countries
Developing countries, through the Group of 77, are pressing the developed countries to tackle more seriously the issues of economic and social development that concerns directly 75 % of the world population5. The gap between developing and developed countries has grown to a point that it is, in the long-term, a threat to the international peace and security.
The pragmatic approach:
To respond the dilemma between peace and security in one side, and development in the other, the UN should have also a pragmatic approach: the alternative that emphasis peace and security has failed on the field of international co-operation and shows its limit in the present conflicts. Therefore, the UN should try the other alternative.
***
Favoring economic and social development is a long-term and more constructive approach. Moreover, the UN faces new kinds of conflicts, the alternative based on the peacekeeping approach has failed, and the economic distress of developing countries represents a threat to international security. This is why, at the beginning of the 21st century, the economical and social development holds out the greatest promise for world prosperity.
That induces whether a reduction in the amount of peacekeeping operations, or the increase of the budget of the UN; the ideal solution being of course the latter.
2. Source: The United Nations -International Organization and World Politics. Laurence Ziring, Riggs, Plano, (2000).: Harcourt College Publishers. Page106
3.�Agenda for Democratization�. 17 December 1996. Boutros Boutros-Ghali
4. �Agenda for Peace�.
5.Source: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/tables/gloinst1.htm