THE UN AND NATO: DIFFERENT PATHS TO PEACE
Keywords:
UN peacekeeping, NATO interventions, diplomacy vs. military force, conflict resolution, global security, long-term peace, Namibia independence, Sierra Leone civil war, Libya 2011 intervention, Lebanon 2006 conflictAbstract
This article explores the differing approaches of the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in their efforts to maintain global peace. The UN prioritizes diplomacy and negotiation, while NATO often opts for military intervention. Through case studies of Namibia, Sierra Leone, Libya, and Lebanon, the article examines the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. It argues that while NATO's military interventions provide rapid conflict resolution, the UN's diplomatic efforts are more conducive to long-term peace and stability. Both organizations play critical roles in global security, but the UN’s focus on negotiation and cooperation offers a more sustainable solution for lasting peace.
Downloads
References
“Namibia’s Transition to Independence.” United Nations Peacekeeping, 1978.
“The Role of the United Nations in the Sierra Leone Conflict.” UN Peacekeeping Operations Report, 2002.
“NATO’s 2011 Libya Intervention and Its Aftermath.” Foreign Policy Journal, 2013.
“Libya Post-Gaddafi: Chaos and Struggle for Power.” The Guardian, 2017.
“UN Peacekeeping Forces in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah Conflict.” UN News, 2006.
“The Importance of Negotiations in International Conflicts.” Journal of International Relations, 2020.
