THE UNITED NATIONS AS A PEACEMAKER

Charter Provisions on Peacemaking
While the UN Charter does not explicitly mention the organization's peacemaking role in ethnic or other types of internal conflicts , under the provisions of charter VI the security Council is empowered in situation that threaten international peace and security to call on all parties to settle their dispute by peaceful means and to recommend appropriate procedures and actual terms of a settlement. But is up to the parties themselves, acting voluntarily, to resolve their dispute peacefully in the light of the UN's recommendation. The UN's traditional peacemaking role as understood from the charter is therefore closer to facilitation than mediation.

UN Peacemaking During the Cold War
During the years of the cold war, the UN was caught in a dilemma. Although effective mediation was difficult to undertake as a result of the political divisions of the world and the virtual paralysis of the Security Council, at the same time the UN quickly realized that the permanent resolutions of conflicts can only be achieved through political negotiations; for that, leverage mediation was often required.
To overcome this dilemma, Secretary Dag Hammarskjold introduced the concept of preventive diplomacy. One common form preventive diplomacy took was the establishment of compression of inquiry or observation units to examine the facts of a dispute. Such fact-finding activities included interrogation, observation, area surveys, and inspection, as well as the analyses and the interpretation of this facts.
To be sure, preventive diplomacy by the UN was a positive step forward, but when it came to resolving ethnic conflicts, the UN's peacemaking efforts were miniscule. Cold war restrictions aside, both the General Assembly and the Security Council were "inappropriate arenas for the settlement of ethnic conflict because they are composed of states and exclude ethnic groups that do not represent sovereign states." Moreover, there was nothing in the charter that would allow the Security Council or the General Assembly to "relate to non-state agencies such as liberation movements, communal minorities, or political parties." Ethnic groups, therefore, found it difficult to communicate their views to the UN unless they could find a state sponsor willing to raise their case, as Turkey did for the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus and Arab states did for the Palestine Liberation Organization(PLO)But most ethnic groups did not have such state sponsors, which usually resulted in UN inaction.
The UN's lack of enforcement capability further undermined its effectiveness as a peacemaker, especially in cases where UN members passed resolutions in support of an ethnonationalists movement. Finally, the General Assembly and Security Council's style of operation--the passing of resolutions--undermined the UN's facilitating role in two distinct ways. (1)the tendency of UN members passed to outvote their opponents did little to encourage adversaries to negotiate on the issues that divided them. (2)At times closely worded resolutions, instead of providing the UN a general framework for pursuing a peace settlement, actually restricted the organization's room to maneuver.

Has the UN Become a More Effective Peacemaker After the Cold War?
Between 1987 and 1991, the UN achieved a number of success in settling outstanding conflicts. The problem lies with the UN decision-making process that deprives the organization of dynamism and flexibility in pursuing mediation. Lack of credibility further decreases the leverage of the UN, hindering the bargaining process and diminishing the probability that the adversaries would accept the proposals put forward by the UN for settling the conflict. The erosion of credibility further hinders UN mediators from offering crucial "guarantees for implementing and observing an agreement."
To read more about "United Nations as a Peacemaker," read: " Understanding Ethnic Conflict: The International Dimension."