Solved Exercise for Precis writing with Title “Role of U.N.O. in World Peace” for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

Fully Solved Precis Exercise

Write a precis of the following passage it about 300 words. State the exact number of words used at the end of the precis.

Some Western writers, and some people in Russia toe, argue that the best way to minimize the explosive quality of the present arms race is somehow to develop a stable balance of terror or deterrence. This means developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems so strong and so varied that no surprise attack could knock out the power to retaliate.

I can see some force in this argument. Effective deterrence depends to some extent on a mutual conviction that the other man can and will do what he threatens if he is attacked. And it may be that this is, for the time being, the only practical way of curbing hasty action. But, in fact, attempting to produce stability in this way also means continuing the arms race. Because, as the power to retaliate increases, there is bound to be a corresponding search for improved weapons which will increase the element of surprise. In any case, inaction through fear, which is the basis of deterrence, is not a positive way to secure peace – at any rate in the long run. I feel bound to doubt whether safety, as Winston Churchill once claimed, can really become the ‘sturdy child of terror’.

It is important to remember that, so far, the United Nations has not contemplated the abolition of all armaments. The first article of the Charter of the United Nations charges the Organisation with the duty of suppressing ‘acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace’, and Article 51 allows the Organisation to use force for this purpose. Indeed, right at the beginning a Military Staffs Committee was set up at the United Nations headquarters and charged with the strategic direction of whatever military forces were to be made available to the Security Council.

In practice, however, the United Nations Organisation does not have any military force permanently at its disposal or any staff to plan operations in advance and direct them when they become necessary. Whatever operations the Organisation has undertaken have been conducted on an entirely ad hoc and improvised basis. In fact, in 1958, Mr. Hammarskjold himself argued against the creation of a permanent United Nations military force. One of the main reasons for this failure to develop a United Nations peace-keeping capacity in terms of military forces has undoubtedly been the opposition of some of the Great Powers. And it must be admitted that there is no prospect of the United Nations coercing the Great Powers into keeping the peace at present. But perhaps we can make virtue of necessity here.

I have tried to suggest that international agreements, like any system of municipal law, demand a sanction of force if observance is normally to be guaranteed and non-observance controlled before it explodes into general disorder. In other words, legislative decision demands as its corollary some form of executive action. It was surely this which Mr. Harnmerskjold had in mind in presenting his last annual report as Secretary-General. Some people, he said, wanted the United Nations to work simply as a conference system producing reconciliation by discussion. Others – and dearly himself among them – looked upon the Organisation primarily as a dynamic instrument of government through which they, jointly and for the same purpose, should seek such reconciliation but through which they should also try to develop forms of executive action undertaken on behalf of all members, aiming at forestalling conflicts and resolving them, once they have arisen by appropriate diplomatic or political means. The word ‘military’ was not used. But at that very moment, the United Nations had in the Congo, and largely through Mr. Hammerskjoid’s efforts, a military force expressly designed to re-establish order and to prevent civil strife from exploding into general war.

It seems to me that any international organization designed to keep the peace must have the power not merely to talk but also to act. Indeed I see this as the central theme of any progress towards an international community in which war is avoided not by chance but by design. Nor need our present limitations daunt us. This is a slow process in which experience grows into habit, and habit into trust. Many people have already suggested how this development could be encouraged. The United Nations could have a bigger permanent staff to act as observers and intelligence officers in potential trouble spots. Here would be part of the political basis of control. It could develop much more detailed methods in advance of drawing on national armed forces when police action becomes inevitable, even without possessing a big military establishment of its own. It could prepare training manuals for the police action its forces are likely to undertake, and for which the ordinary soldier is not normally trained. And it could begin to hold under its own control small specialist staffs, for example, multilingual signallers, and some small stocks of equipment such as transport aircraft, which its operations almost inevitably demand.

The fact that coercion of the Great Powers is impossible does not invalidate any of these suggestions. If these Powers can, for the time being, avoid major war among themselves by nuclear deterrence, then the likeliest explosive situations will occur in areas not of vital interest to them. It is there that the United Nations can experiment and develop.

Aids to Vocabulary

1. Deterrence — to frighten from acting
2. Retaliate — to take revenge, to retort
3. Contemplated — thought over
4. Strategic — the art of war
5. Coerce — force
6. Corollary — immediate deduction, conclusion
7. Forestalling — beforehand, anticipating
8. Strife — struggle
9. Resolving — settling
10. Manual — pertaining to or done with hands, a small handy book .
11. Invalidate – to render invalid, to weaken

Points for Precis Writing

1. It is argued that the best way to lessen fears in this explosive age is to develop a balance of terror.
2. This argument has an element of logic in it. It is the only practical method of curbing hasty action at present.
3. But his method lacks positive approach, as it does not ensure permanent peace. It rather gives impetus to search of improved weapons.
4. The United Nations has the duty to suppress the acts of aggression and work for a lasting peace, for this purpose, it had been bestowed the use of force, but it has not so far contemplated the abolition of all ornaments.
5. In reality U.N.O. does not have any military force permanently at its disposal, that speaks for the fact that it cannot plan operations in advance, and whatever operations are undertaken, they are entirely so on ad—hoc basis.
6. The creation of a permanent United Nations military force has been pleaded for but the opposition of some great Powers has stood in the way.
7. Some element of force is essential if U.N.O.’s plan to establish permanent peace are to be carried out otherwise its stature would be equated to conference hall, where reconciliation by discussion is attempted.
8. An International organisation designed to establish peace must act and not just talk. This is necessary if war is to be avoided not by chance but by design.
9. At potential danger points United Nations should have its own specially trained men, to control the situation as and when it takes a turn for the worse.
10. This force could prove to be very effective at explosive situations (these are likely to be in areas which are not of vital interest to the great powers). At such places United Nations could experiment and progress.

Precis

`Balance of terror’ —which means development of nuclear weapons to such an extent that no surprise attack should paralyse the capacity, to counter attack — is considered the best way to lessen fears in this explosive age. The argument certainly has both logic and practical element in it. But it cannot be termed as a positive approach, as it does not ensure permanent peace. It rather gives impetus to search of improved weapons. The United Nations is of course committed to establishment of peace, and can use force for this purpose, but it has not so far contemplated the abolition of all armaments. Even for maintenance of peace U.N.O. has no military force permanently, that speaks for the fact that it cannot plan action in advance, all operations are undertaken on ad—hoc basis. The creation of a permanent United Nations force has been suggested, but the opposition of great powers has been suggested, but the opposition of great powers has stood in the way of its implementation. But some element of force is essential if U.N.O.’s plans to establishment of peace are to be carried out otherwise its status would be that of a ‘Conference Hall’ where reconciliation by discussion is attempted. An international body designed to establish peace must be in a position to act and not just talk. This is a must if wars have to be avoided by planning and design rather than by chance. U.N.O. must have its own specially trained officers and men posted at points of potential danger to control the situation as and when the need be. This force could prove its effectiveness at explosive points (these are likely to be in areas which are not of vital interest to great powers). At such places United Nations could experiment and make a headway.

Suggested Title:-

UNO and World Peace

Role of U.N.O. in World Peace

Force essential for World Peace