What lessons were learned from the failure of the League of Nations?

Introduction
The League of Nations was established in 1919, and it was the first international
organisation whose principal mission was to maintain world peace. Housden
(2011, p.6) described the League as an ambitious venture which aimed to
capitalize on some of the best possibilities of mankind. Although the League of
Nations might have made efforts and contributed to maintaining peace in some
conflicts in the world at that time, it could not prevent the outbreak of the Second
World War. However, the League of Nations left many lessons, and the United
Nations might learn and improve from the failures of the League. Unfortunately,
the world still has many problems that are necessarily to be solved, and it is
difficult to say that the UN is the perfect International Institution for tackling global
issues. However, we should recognise that people succeeded to set up the UN
which is much more stable and reliable than the League. This essay aims to
explain the failures of the League and some problems which the UN faces in
modern society.

The powerful state called the US

Firstly, it could be said that the absence of the United States might be one of
the factors which led the League of Nations to fail. MacMillan (2014, p.29)
described that France, Britain and the United States were Big three in military
and economically in the world at that moment. Although Woodrow Wilson, the
28th President of the US, played a major role in the establishment of the League
of Nations because of that the main purpose of Wilson was setting up of the
League of Nations which was meaningful for US long-term economic and
strategic interests (Anievas, 2014, p.636), the US did not join the League.
Therefore, the most powerful two states were Britain and France in the League
of Nations were European countries, and Housden (2011, p.35) pointed out that
the absence of the US made Britain and France bear disproportionate
responsibility in the League. As a result, the permanent members of the League
were almost occupied by European countries, despite the international institution.
Housden (2011, pp.35-36) also considered that it was difficult to coordinate
responses to crises and restricted the Leagues financial resource base due to
the absence of the US, and some countries such as the Soviet Union, Germany,
and Turkey which had a time lag in joining. Consequently, the absence of the US
could make the League of Nations unstable, and contemporary global
organisations learned that the affiliation of powerful states to global organisations
like the United Nations or Russia is crucial for maintaining organisation from the
experience of the League of Nations.
On the other hand, it is also difficult to control member states in the United
Nations, even though powerful states are members. Furthermore, the US is
gaining notoriety for its disproportionate influence, and when its attitude differs
from that of the UN, it can ignore the UN completely. According to Johnstone
(2004, p.814), interventions of the US during cold war were considered as
evolving conceptions of sovereignty and security, but the USs military act in the
Iraq war could not be overlooked by the UN, and the ambivalent attitude of the
US to the UN expose the precarious nature of the institutional bargain.
Furthermore, it is obvious that the US have powerful influencein the Security
Council, and the decision of the US also have a critical impact in the UN
(Mastanduno, MacFarlane and Foot, 2003, p.76). Although the UN succeeded in
avoiding the absence of the great power called the US, US push through
dogmatic decision and there are cases where the UN fail to control the US.

The treatment against aggressor states

The League of Nations also learnt a harsh lesson on suppression of defeated
nations. According to Bennett and Graebner (2014, p.45), Wilson showed
disapproval with regard to the treatment of Germany and suggested to find the
points to be compromised because severe suppressing might increase frustration
in Germany. However, thoroughgoing restrictions against Germany were decided
to contain in The Treaty of Versailles the throughout the Paris Peace Conference
(ibid). The Treaty contained a lot of disadvantageous clauses for Germany such
as ceding of the Saar Valley, which was rich in coal deposits in the southern
Rhineland, to France or establishing of Rhenish republics along the west bank of
the Rhine (ibid, pp.45-46, 48). In addition, the number of army and weapons in
Germany was restricted and reduced, and not only military power also Germany
had to pay astronomical compensation (ibid). Consequently, a lot of Germany
reacted adversely to the treaty which contained astronomical compensation and
disadvantageous clauses. As a result, economic crisis and social unrest followed
in Germany. Therefore, the allied treatment of Germany might have influenced
Germanys choice of Nazi Germany led by Hitler to brake their harsh situation
due to the strict treatment as Wilson expected. Furthermore, the League also did
not have enough power to prevent the invention of Germany, because states of
the League tended to be motivated by self-interest rather than cooperation
(Eloranta, 2010, p.34), and the states in the League did not take any military
action against the acts of aggression by Japan, Italy, and Germany, and some
member states continued to trade with the aggressor states (Grigorescu, 2005,
pp.30-31). In other words, it could be said that the League created the Nazis
through their restrictions placed on Germany, and did not place any proper
sanctions against aggressor states.
The UN uses sanctions more than the League, and it normally works effectively.
However, the UN has to change the view to sanction in these days. Economic
sanction is considered effective sanction in post-cold war (Eliot cited in Charron
and Boulden, 2010, p3). However, economic sanctions also involve innocent
citizens, therefore it should not be considered a useful method for effective
diplomacy. Langille, Ismael and von Sponeck (2008, p.58) also reported that a lot
of young Iraqis suffered mental disorders, and the majority of the population was
forced to live in poverty and complete destitution under the UN sanctions regime.
Furthermore, the report of Anupama Rao Singh (2010) pointed out that many
children were suffering chronic malnutrition, and child mortality rates had more
than doubled since the imposition of sanctions in Iraq (cited in Langille, Ismael
and von Sponeck, 2008, p.59). It is obvious that economic sanctions have risks
which involve innocent citizens, and the UN has to review the effectiveness of
sanctions humanely.

The transition of disparity

After world war 1, Wilson explained that the importance of self-determination,
and Poles and Serbs were allowed to independence, and Korea where were
occupied by Japan, Egyptians under the British, and Armenians under the Turks
also believed that it was applied to them (Pedersen, 2007, p.1099). However,
Wilsons principle did not extend to all of them. In the Paris Peace Conference,
people such as yellow, brown, and black peoples living under or outside of white
rule understood that Wilsons principle did not include them (Bennett and
Graebner, 2014 p.52). Furthermore, the Japanese delegation tried to introduce
the recognition of racial equality to the League Covenant, but it was not adopted.
Surprisingly, the American delegation opposed to it, though Wilson promoted self-
determination (ibid, p.56). In spite of the fact that the League was a global
institution, states which white peoples had a hegemony were probably given
priority in the league potentially, and such disparity would give rise to distrust and
frustration about the League from non-white countries.
Unfortunately, the inequality of race has not been eliminated completely yet, but
the gap between wealthy countries and poor countries is a more serious problem
in the UN. According to Panke (2014, p.384), wealthy states can get more
opportunities of negotiations in the variety of topics than poverty states, because
rich states can form larger delegations which can make position contains voice
in a broad array of issues in the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Therefore, it
could not deny that the decision in the UNGA is led by wealthy countries, and It
is probably more challenging that opinion from poorer states to be reflected in the
UNGA. The UNGA have to make space where the poor states can reach their
voice.

Conclusion
Due to the failures of the League such as vacancy of the United States, too
severe suppressing against defeated countries and the disparity within the
League, many countries tried to establish the UN which works more secure and
reliable than the League as a global institution after the Second World War.
However, it is still difficult to say that the UN is the global institution without defects
because there are still some points of the UN that is worth to be reconsidered
under the current world conditions. Furthermore, there is a possibility that new
issues which the UN will confront in the future, but the UN keeps prevent the
world war up to the present day. Therefore, the UN should be improved and
amended in cases when drawbacks or vulnerability of the UN are found
throughout the change of times.

References

Anievas, A. (2014). International relations between war and revolution: Wilsonian

diplomacy and the making of the treaty of Versailles. International Politics, 51(5),
pp.619-647.

Bennett, E. and Graebner, N. (2014). The Versailles treaty and its legacy: The failure of
the Wilsonian vision. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Charron, A. and Boulden, J. (2010). Evaluating UN sanctions: New ground, new

dilemmas, and unintended consequences. International Journal: Canada's Journal
of Global Policy Analysis, 65(1), pp.1-11.

Eloranta, J. (2010). Why did the league of nations fail?. Cliometrica, 5(1), pp.27-52.

Grigorescu, A. (2005). Mapping the UN-League of Nations Analogy: Are There Still
Lessons to Be Learned from the League?. Global Governance, 11(1), pp.25-42.

Housden, M. (2011). The league of nations and the organisation of peace. New York:
Pearson Longman.

Johnstone, I. (2004). US-UN relations after Iraq: The end of the world (order) as we
know it?. European Journal of International Law, 15(4), pp.813-838.

Langille, C., Ismael, T. and von Sponeck, H. (2008). Reforming UN sanctions in the
shade of Iraq: Targeting regimes, sparing civilians. International Journal of
Contemporary Iraqi Studies, 2(1), pp.53-66.

MacMillan, M. (2014). MacMillan, Margaret: Making War, Making Peace: Versailles,

1919. Queen's Quarterly, 121(1), pp.24-37.

Mastanduno, M., MacFarlane, S. and Foot, R. (2003). US hegemony and international

organizations. Oxford University Press (OUP).
Panke, D. (2014). Is Bigger Better? Activity and Success in Negotiations in the United
Nations General Assembly. Negotiation Journal, 30(4), pp.367-392.

Pedersen, S. (2007). Back to the league of nations. The American Historical Review,
112(4), pp.1091-1117.