August 03, 2004
UN Reformation
John Kerry has vowed to lead the United Nations in the global battle against Islamic fundamentalism. That sounds pretty good, but conservatives are making some legitimate points about the integrity and structure of the UN. So how will John Kerry address those problems?
Let's see what the Book of John has to say on the matter. After the requisite France bashing, "France is flirting with a revival of Charles de Gaulle's fantasy of making Europe an independent counterweight to US power, led, of course, from Paris," and some harsh words about German "neopacifism", Kerry states,
"If there wasn't a UN, we'd have to invent a comparable institution as an instrument for conferring the legitimacy of the world community on a wide variety of military, economic, and humanitarian endeavors. ...To put it another way the United States has poured generations of talent and treasure into these institutions, and rather than abandoning or downgrading them, we should refashion and strengthen them for a new generation of service to the world."
So clearly, John Kerry is unsatisfied with the current state of the United Nations and is determined to restructure it. What, exactly, is wrong with the United Nations, and how can it be fixed?
I recently ran across a Foreign Affairs article titled, "Smart Power", by Suzanne Nossel who was Deputy to the Ambassador for UN Management and Reform at the US mission to the UN from 1999 to 2001. Her case for liberal internationalism evoked a, "duh," from me quite a few times (conservatives may have a slightly different reaction), but she has a unique perspective on how the UN needs to be tweaked.
"Progressive policymakers should launch an aggressive reform campaign, working with Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who has vowed to devote his remaining term to revitalizing the UN. By doing so, they can erase the perception of their blind faith in multilateralism while fashioning a world body that is up to its tasks."
Nossel puts forth five areas for reform:
- The stultified UN bureaucracy must be transformed into a dynamic professional organization, "This will mean standing up to the organization's staff union, so that top performers can be rewarded and poor ones weeded out."
- The UN, as pointed out in the Brahimi Report on UN Peacekeeping Operations, needs rapidly deployable forces, "The United States should support rapid deployment and contribute units for tasks such as logistics and transport that it is uniquely positioned to provide."
- Anti-Western voting blocs should be disbanded, diffused, or countered, "The Group of 77 and the Nonaligned Movement--Cold War relics--retain outsized importance at the UN, leading to such travesties as Libya's leadership of the human rights committee, Cuba's domination of budget debates, and constant scapegoating of Israel. Breaking this dynamic is essential to restoring the UN'S credibility."
- UN processes must be streamlined, "Structural reforms should begin by eliminating outmoded and redundant committees, reports, meetings, and bureaus. Examples include the multiple "housekeeping" committees, on topics such as conferences and contributions, that have neither decision-making nor implementation responsibilities."
- And finally, US leaders should get better at diplomacy, "Being aloof and dismissive squanders U.S. influence by letting others develop firm positions before U.S. delegates even make their case. By taking the initiative early on key issues and working behind the scenes to build support before formal debate begins, the United States can get its way most of the time without forcing other governments to capitulate publicly to its demands."
The Clinton administration addressed these issues through punitive tactics like withholding dues, and had a few diplomatic victories like keeping Sudan off the Security Council. The Bush administration has not addressed the issue at all. It will be interesting to see how Kerry will "refashion and strengthen" the UN. And according to a recent CBS interview, it looks like Kerry and Edwards already have a handle on the last issue. Kerry has a plan to approach other world leaders about Iraq, "and I'm not negotiating it publicly."
Really good topic and information, AP. Thanks. We and the world’s people need a functional, more efficient, and agile United Nations - there is no question in my mind. It is encouraging to hear Kerry is capabable and willing to develop goals and a plan for the U.N. even before being elected.
There is no question that stabilizing organizations and efforts are desperately needed in the world in light of events of the last few years. I grew up with such high hopes for the U.N., and it appears the U.N. has lost its way in trying to fulfill the promise it held out for the world at its inception. That said, to large numbers of people in the world, the U.N. still holds out hope.
Although, that hope may be misplaced as it is an organization of nations and their leaders, as opposed to an organization of representatives of their respective peoples in some cases.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 3, 2004 11:35 AMAP:
Very good and timely topic. You mentioned Clinton’s strategy, along with the victory in keeping Sudan off the Security Council.
Here’s a thought: Recognizing that many see the UN as a bloated bureaucracy that accomplishes less than it should, I am amazed that such little substantive change has occurred. The punitive actions that Clinton took seemed to be a start, but I’m not sure they really accomplished all that much. And of course, there was still the complaining from the “left” of how the US was abusing the UN.
I agree with the points in your post generally, but I dont see the UN actually accomplishing them without giant prodding from the outside. I do believe that sometimes you have to really solidly make demands before you will see action.
I think this is a good time for that. The world is seeing the ineffectiveness of the UN in preventing the murders in Sudan by the Janjaweed militia. They saw the ineffectiveness in dealing with Iraq. Perhaps the world will now step forward in unison and declare the UN to be a sham. Not an unfixable sham, but a sham nonetheless. Then the process of resurrecting the UN in a proper form can begin.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 3, 2004 12:58 PM> Not an unfixable sham, but a sham nonetheless.
Joe, I’m happy to read what you’ve written — because many conservatives these days, including the Bush Administration, seem to think that the “unfixable sham” is the only reality. The UN is, to Administration neocons and their supporters, not even useful as a fig leaf anymore. We on the left who defend the usefulness of the UN aren’t necessarily saying that we should kneel before them or even that the decisions of the UN must be respected - we are saying, however, that it should not be discarded or ignored and that, in fact, with strong and smart US leadership, it could become a powerful instrument to ensure that US policy is accepted more broadly around the world.
Thanks to American Pundit, too, for opening this thread and showing that the left, too, has concerns about the future legitimacy and usefulness of the UN.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 3, 2004 04:05 PMThe difference between Kerry and Bush is that if Bush is reelected, Iraq will be just the first step in a much wider neocon campaign to subjigate the Middle East and dominate that part of the world.
If Kerry is elected, Iraq will be looked at as a mess that needs to be cleaned up. Iraq will be still be a sore spot but there will be a very concerted effort to limit any further expansion.
If Bush is elected, by 2008 we may well be at war with half the world. The neocons have already stated that they want to expand the war to Iran. This bungling bunch of incompetants may also blunder into a war with North Korea and then by extension with China. They are so bad at diplomacy that everyone we considered to be our allies in 1999 (except Brittan and Isreal) may seriously consider joining a wider war to stop us.
If Kerry is elected, we may still be loosing a few hundred people a month in Iraq but we wont be at war with half the world and we may even be able to repair the friendships that have served us so well since the end of WWII.
Posted by: winterbear at August 3, 2004 04:20 PMWinterbear, we’re losing a few hundred people a month? I didn’t realize that we’ve lost nearly five thousand soldiers in Iraq. Exaggerating our losses that grotesquely can only make one think you wished it were true in order to elect your own candidate. If partisanship has come to that, it’s truly a sad day for all of us.
If I believed the sunshine and lollipops scenarios you envision for a Kerry presidency, I’d vote for him myself. You make it sound like the entire world bases all of their actions and positions only upon their own tempermental feelings about whoever the current US president is, as if they have no national interests or other pressures exerted upon them. As if they’re all just a bunch of moody brats who’ll change in a second if you’ll only smile at them, if you’ll lose your cowboy hat and Texas drawl.
The only way Kerry will achieve a change in the attitudes of foreign leaders or populations is by ratcheting up pressure on them, presenting them with serious consequences if they don’t cooperate. So many on the left think that foreign policy is like selling a used car—that a different salesman and different reassurances will make all the difference.
The only thing that could prove satisfying about a Kerry presidency would be that he, along with everybody cheerleading for him, would finally have to face reality. Unfortunately, these are such dangerous times that serious people don’t have the luxury of waiting for others to catch up and recognize the real challenges of our day. For that reason, we desperately need Bush in the White House and a one way ticket back to Boston on a luxury Learjet for Kerry.
Perhaps the world will now step forward in unison and declare the UN to be a sham. Not an unfixable sham, but a sham nonetheless. Then the process of resurrecting the UN in a proper form can begin.
That’s an interesting statement, joe. As for the first part, I think the world already agrees that the UN is not what it should be. But what is the process for “resurrecting the UN?” That’s what we’re really talking about here.
The UN is not a body totally unconnected from the nations it represents. At it’s core, it is a group of 191 people who each represent their country. Which one of them is supposed to begin “the process”? Which country leads the way?
I think we’d both agree that if any country other than the United States took the leading role in reshaping the UN to meet post-cold war challenges, it will probably fall apart. There’s no way we, as the most powerful (economically, militarily, and up until recently morally) nation in the world, would let ourselves be bound by such an organization.
And that’s where I think a lot of conservative resistance to the UN comes from. The UN was created by the United States. It’s headquartered in the United States. Up until recently, it was lead by the United States. Conservatives seem to treat it as some type of independent world government that acts on its own initiative.
If the UN passes a resolution it’s because the United States wants it passed. Otherwise, we’d veto it. If a resolution needs to be enforced, it’s up to the United States to lead the way, because only the United States has the military and logistical might to do so anywhere in the world.
To be sure, the UN is exactly what conservatives fear it to be: an attempt to control the actions of the United States. But it’s a two way street. By allowing the rest of the world a stake in the wielding of US power, we gain the legitimacy of wielding that power at the behest of the all the peoples of the world. And we’ve been able to work that way with varying degrees of success for fifty years.
Occasionally, we’ve put our national security ahead of the concerns of the rest of the world, but only after making great (conservatives would say super extraordinary) effort to get a UN mandate, but the UN has held together because, by and large, they realize we sometimes need to act unilaterally, and they appreciate the effort that was made.
That’s what mostly ticked off the world, and Europe especially, about Iraq. Bush did not even pretend to take their concerns seriously. Bush cajoled, called names, and made ultimatums. That’s not how you lead people or nations.
If we’re going to reform the UN, we need to reassert our leadership of that body. Recent events have shown a spotlight on problems with the UN, but they have also shed light on what needs to be done to fix it. If we’re going to begin the process, now is the time. If it takes some “giant prodding from the outside”, the United States is the only country that can and should do so. As far as the UN goes, we truly are “the indespensible nation.”
So who is going to make that happen? Bush, who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about the unique place the United States holds in that organization? Or John Kerry?
[Yowch! Who has time to read all that? Sorry.]
I had a hard time getting through the middle section of the comments where the UN seemed to be taking a back seat to presidential politics - again. As far as presidential politics goes, Bush should recognize that the UN needs fixing rather than discarding and admit that it does some good in establishing international legitimacy which would be hard to achieve with any newly created body - as if he was even talking about replacing the UN.
Here’s a question off of politics and back to the UN, I wonder if the fact that the UN is an unelected body contributes to the problems in the organization? Does the fact that representative to the UN are appointed by their respective governments give them a sense of being more loyal to home than to the world good? Do they have a tendancy to support what is popular at home or with their national leaders over what is good for the world?
I don’t know the answers to those questions, but I think they might help in diagnosing the real problems of the UN.
Posted by: David at August 4, 2004 11:00 AMDavid, that’s a good question. For the UN member nations that are Democracies, I guess you could argue that the UN representatives reflect the will of the people, since they represent elected leaders.
I’m not sure that directly elected representatives would work though, since you’d inevitably have UN representatives working at odds with the governments of the countries they are supposed to represent.
Again, I sense a misunderstanding of the nature of the UN. It’s not, and was never intended to be an independent, non-governmental organization. It’s a forum for governments to discuss and resolve international issues, not a body dedicated to doing what is good for the world.
