"Realism" and the U.N.
Michael Young has become one of my favorite writers on the Middle East and the wars (both Iraq and “on terror” which are two distinct wars, whatever the Administration may claim) in progress. He seems to have a deep grasp of the history and forces at work within the region, and also maintains a balance of perspective and principle in his observations. I share his general view, as far as I can divine it, which is a certain broad sympathy with the vision and goals of spreading liberal democracy (i.e. the “neocon” vision) coupled to a harsh judgment on just how badly the effort has floundered in Iraq. Young's latest column at Reason actually has me taking off on a related tangent: the moral bankruptcy of the U.N.
I imagine I’m hardly breaking much new ground here, I know the idea of a “democratic U.N.” has been floated before, but I’d just like to chip in my two cents. I actually will not go so far as to dismiss the U.N. as totally useless, I do believe it serves at least two worthwhile functions. First, the humanitarian relief efforts conducted under U.N. auspices are undoubtedly very valuable. It’s hard to find much fault with UNICEF vaccinating kids or supplying clean drinking water, except that these efforts are subject to the ever-present concerns about bureaucratic overhead and corruption, but then that will be true of any organization.
Second, I do believe there is at least some value in providing a standing forum for multilateral diplomacy. Let’s be clear about what I mean by “diplomacy,” as this gets to the heart of my critique of the U.N. I simply mean “old school” or “classical” diplomacy, wherein (de facto) sovereign states negotiate matters of their own interests, period. This is the traditional “realist” form of diplomacy and foreign policy. I think there is an absolute need for diplomacy of this sort; this is one thing that “realists” have right. I strongly agree that is generally a mistake to simply not talk to other governments, however odious they may be, when our interests and security are at stake, i.e. see Iran and North Korea as recent examples. I fully understand that these governments may not be trustworthy and that talks may prove fruitless, but I generally don’t see the harm in talking. Talking is NOT a substitute for action, which is a common critique--there is no reason action cannot be taken in parallel with talks. And so on. So, as a forum for this sort of diplomacy, I think the U.N. has value.
The vision of the U.N. breaks down when we move from the arena of classical, cold-eyed, hard-hearted realism about the world as it is into the moral realm of how the world should be. The idea that all current governments are equally legitimate is clearly a moral absurdity. Although reasonable people should find those who would try to equate, for example, Bush and Saddam to be clearly overwrought, let us avoid any real controversy and find other examples that don’t involve the U.S. and any current or recent antagonists. Is it in any way justifiable to put, for example, the government of Myanmar (Burma) on the same moral footing as, oh let’s say, the government of Norway? Or how about the government of Sudan treated as morally equal to that of New Zealand, or Canada, or… you get the picture. So as an ongoing atrocity unfolds in Darfur (and another may be brewing next door in the Horn) the U.N., as nearly always, sits idly by because various interested parties can easily block action, while the butchers (or at least their sponsors) sit in Khartoum and rail about their sovereignty.
The U.N. has no moral authority. As far as I’m concerned, this is not a rant by some oddball crank (though that I may be), but a simple statement of fact. It cannot have any such authority, as long as it is constituted of “sovereign” states, which themselves must pass no test for moral authority. This is not to say I favor disbanding the U.N. (see the good points mentioned above). I am even one of those “mushy-headed” souls who believe in the ideals of international law and universal human rights, but I believe it is clear that the U.N. is not the place to look for such ideals. Nor will it ever be so, unless it is radically redefined.
I imagine I’m hardly breaking much new ground here, I know the idea of a “democratic U.N.” has been floated before, but I’d just like to chip in my two cents. I actually will not go so far as to dismiss the U.N. as totally useless, I do believe it serves at least two worthwhile functions. First, the humanitarian relief efforts conducted under U.N. auspices are undoubtedly very valuable. It’s hard to find much fault with UNICEF vaccinating kids or supplying clean drinking water, except that these efforts are subject to the ever-present concerns about bureaucratic overhead and corruption, but then that will be true of any organization.
Second, I do believe there is at least some value in providing a standing forum for multilateral diplomacy. Let’s be clear about what I mean by “diplomacy,” as this gets to the heart of my critique of the U.N. I simply mean “old school” or “classical” diplomacy, wherein (de facto) sovereign states negotiate matters of their own interests, period. This is the traditional “realist” form of diplomacy and foreign policy. I think there is an absolute need for diplomacy of this sort; this is one thing that “realists” have right. I strongly agree that is generally a mistake to simply not talk to other governments, however odious they may be, when our interests and security are at stake, i.e. see Iran and North Korea as recent examples. I fully understand that these governments may not be trustworthy and that talks may prove fruitless, but I generally don’t see the harm in talking. Talking is NOT a substitute for action, which is a common critique--there is no reason action cannot be taken in parallel with talks. And so on. So, as a forum for this sort of diplomacy, I think the U.N. has value.
The vision of the U.N. breaks down when we move from the arena of classical, cold-eyed, hard-hearted realism about the world as it is into the moral realm of how the world should be. The idea that all current governments are equally legitimate is clearly a moral absurdity. Although reasonable people should find those who would try to equate, for example, Bush and Saddam to be clearly overwrought, let us avoid any real controversy and find other examples that don’t involve the U.S. and any current or recent antagonists. Is it in any way justifiable to put, for example, the government of Myanmar (Burma) on the same moral footing as, oh let’s say, the government of Norway? Or how about the government of Sudan treated as morally equal to that of New Zealand, or Canada, or… you get the picture. So as an ongoing atrocity unfolds in Darfur (and another may be brewing next door in the Horn) the U.N., as nearly always, sits idly by because various interested parties can easily block action, while the butchers (or at least their sponsors) sit in Khartoum and rail about their sovereignty.
The U.N. has no moral authority. As far as I’m concerned, this is not a rant by some oddball crank (though that I may be), but a simple statement of fact. It cannot have any such authority, as long as it is constituted of “sovereign” states, which themselves must pass no test for moral authority. This is not to say I favor disbanding the U.N. (see the good points mentioned above). I am even one of those “mushy-headed” souls who believe in the ideals of international law and universal human rights, but I believe it is clear that the U.N. is not the place to look for such ideals. Nor will it ever be so, unless it is radically redefined.
posted by wRONgainey at 2:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home