What you see below is a rough cut of a paper I wrote on the US/UN. It definitely needs some polishing, but I thought people might be interested in reading it as-is. Let me know if you you have any comments.
Introduction
The United Nations (UN) was created out of the ashes of the League of Nations at the end of World War II. Though its primary purpose is to prevent conflict between any two nations, for the better part of its existence it simply balanced the two strongest: Russian and the US. The US emerged victorious from that long conflict and has had moderate success promoting its ideals and philosophy around the globe. Now that that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, does it even still need the United Nations?
Pax Americana
Pax Americana is built on two main pillars: the American economy and the American military (1). Both are the largest, and thus most influential, in the world in their respective categories. And yet, it is common wisdom that the Empire is in decline. Critics point out that the military has been tarnished by the Bush Doctrine (2). The United States is in the worst recession since at least the Great Depression.
Glue
The end of the Cold War marked the defeat of Communism as a viable economic system. After 1991, capitalism, under the direction of the United States, has marched forward and conquered most of the rest of the world. For a long time even before 1991, the global economy under capitalism has been one long Cinderella story. There have been occasional recessions, but they have been primarily local in scope. Even as recently as 12 years ago during the Asian Financial Crisis, major local economic troubles failed to send the global economy into recession (3).
Now, capitalism has almost succeeded in binding the world together with a common economy. While proponents of free trade have rejoiced, this new global interconnectedness has brought new economic problems: when one major economy goes into recession, the world follows suit. In and of itself, a recession does not lead to a referendum on the viability of the capitalist system. However, when economic protectionism rises in response to a downturn, many countries will lose faith in the system that the United States has worked so hard and for so long to build and maintain.
Dulling the Blade
America has been involved in four major land conflicts since World War II: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Each of these conflicts has demonstrated the limits of American military power (4). In Korea and Vietnam, guerrilla tactics prevailed against air and numerical superiority. Though the initial invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were over quickly, the same types of warfare seen in Vietnam during the 60s and 70s and in Afghanistan during the 80s have hampered progress.
The current conflicts have taken an enormous toll on our military. Though there are nearly 200,000 troops currently deployed in these two conflicts, by 2005 well over a million soldiers had been cycled through Iraq and Afghanistan, 1/3 of the total number of soldiers involved in the 15 year long campaign in Vietnam (5). As of February 12, 2009 4,885 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, with another 23,724 wounded (6). It was estimated in 2004 that nearly 1 in 8 soldiers returning from Iraq and 1 in 16 returning from Afghanistan suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (7). Before the current economic crisis, recruitment numbers were down considerably (8).
Could the military, already stretched thin, fight the Russians if they invaded Ukraine? Or China if they invaded Taiwan? Perhaps, but with reduced effectiveness. The United States has taken on the responsibility as the world’s lone superpower to police the entire world. In Steven Weber’s article, How Globalization Went Bad, he posited that “above a certain threshold of power, the rate at which new global problems are generated will exceed the rate at which old problems are fixed” (9). NATO could certainly assist in large conflicts, but there is an organization already in place that both shares the liberal ideals of the United States and has the moral and legal authority to act on them: the United Nations.
Pacis Alius
Too often, the US acts like it is the United Nations. It acts as judge, jury, and executioner of the global order, seeing its hegemony as a natural implementation of a universal set of liberal values. To some extent, those values are shared by many of the Earth’s nations, as one can see by looking at the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, where many countries take issue is when the United States acts unilaterally to enforce or impose those rights. They argue, perhaps correctly, that that job falls to the United Nations, where all countries can voice their concerns.
Conflict Resolution
“[T]he primary purpose of the UN [is] to deal with international peace and security,” (10) says Thomas Weiss, Presidential Professor of Political Science at The CUNY Graduate Center and Director of the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies. Besides the General Assembly, this task falls to the Security Council, made up of the victors of the Second World War. Beyond these two institutions, the various UN organizations, while each tasked with specific missions, are part of the over-arching desire to prevent war by attacking the roots human struggle.
Occasionally, it will be said in the US that the UN, and specifically the Security Council, is outdated and useless. While even former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan agrees that there is a need for reform the Security Council (11), no one wants the US to pronounce it dead (12). Whatever the reasons countries have for wanting to keep the Security Council around, the US would do well to listen. By giving the Council more support, the US gives it credibility and makes it easier for resolutions to be enforced. Increased credibility also makes other nations more willing to contribute militarily to combat operations or less likely to break trade sanctions, as seen in the first Gulf War and in Afghanistan, where the United States got Security Council support for its operations.
While the UN’s main purpose is to maintain the peace, it “remains largely dependent on the nature and quality of state foreign policy” (10). Legitimacy is a top-down affair, if other countries see that the world’s lone super-power does not take the UN seriously, neither will they. In order to help itself deal with obstinate or aggressive nations, the US must help the UN. Only then will the world accept a more Americanized agenda.
The Global Economy
There are several international organizations that are designed to improve economic conditions around the globe: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Bank. Though the World Bank is the only one to be affiliated with the UN, can be considered as more or less representative of the globe. By supporting these organizations, the United States can encourage economic interdependence and maintain the peace.
Economic interdependence comes in main two forms: capital markets (money and investments) and goods markets (resources and products) (13). Free markets are characterized by the unrestricted access to these two markets. There is significant evidence that such markets contribute significantly towards peace between different countries (13). However, bilateral trade agreements can only go so far. The idea that a country needs more than one trading partner, and thus a common trade and commercial framework, follows the common wisdom of not putting all one's eggs in one basket.
The United States has to be careful not to alienate the rest of the world when it comes to trade. Protectionism is one of those things the world would not like. During the Great Depression, the Tariff Act of 1930 (and other similar tariffs around the globe) contributed to a 70% year-over-year contraction in global trade (14). Such protectionist measures are found in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the "Buy American" clause, restricting where various raw come from for new construction projects (15). Michael Collins’ interview with Byron Blake also shows how important it is to bring additional legitimacy to global trade institutions. The US cannot simply give lip-service, it must lead and engage the developing world (16).
Issues
The United Nations is not a panacea. The leadership is restricted by both the member states and the bureaucracy. From the Sudan to Rwanda to Iraq, there are many examples from even from the last fifteen years where the UN has failed to accomplish its primary purpose. There are other examples where the UN itself has been the problem.
The UN Oil-for-Food program in Iraq during the later '90s and early 2000s provide an example of where the UN can cause problems. It was designed to trade Iraqi oil for food so its citizens did not starve due to trade sanctions. Unfortunately, the program was characterized by kickbacks and corruption that ultimately undermined the goals of the program. The former head of the program was recently indicted by a US court in New York on corruption charges (17). This was not the first time a UN program had failed or even caused a bad situation worse, but it is representative of a larger structural problem in the UN, on that has been simmering for some time and is only now coming to the forefront.
In his waning years as UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan announced a huge initiative to reform the UN bureaucracy (18). One of the initiative's main goals is to give the Secretary-General the power to manage the bureaucracy with autonomy and flexibility (11). Previously, many things, even as basic as the ability to fire workers, required outside approval. In the case of the Oil-for-Food program, imagine having to ask the country that bribed the person you are trying to fire for permission to fire that individual! An exaggeration perhaps, but not outside the realm of possibility. Other reforms included budgetary and financial reforms to make the organization more efficient and corruption easier to spot.
Another area of concern is the structure of the Security Council. Critics of the Security Council point out that the five permanent members, each with veto power, represent the balance of power as it was at the end of World War II. There has been some talk of expanding the Security Council and giving permanent seats to Germany and Japan. The Italian reaction to this proposal shows to complications involved- the Italian ambassador demanded that Italy be given a permanent seat as well "after all," he argued, "Italians also lost World War II" (12). There is no quick solution to Security Council reform.
Besides the structural issues in the Security Council, the philosophy behind it is also in jeopardy. Thomas Weiss points out four fundamental issues with the idea of collective security: some states have refused to join a collective-sanctioning effort because they have already defined their friends and enemies; there is a fundamental problem of power (do sanctions work against a nuclear power, or a country with a large domestic economy?); collective security can be costly to those supporting it; the concept of collective security is based on the assumption that all victims are equally important” (10). While the details of these issues are beyond the scope of this paper, the fact that they exist should indicate a need to perhaps rework concept of collective security as implemented by the Security Council.
Conclusion
The United States still needs the United Nations. Even if the US was not facing an economic crisis and fighting two wars, the UN offers a unique and legitimate opportunity for promoting liberal values across the globe. Though there are many problems facing the UN, the institution can overcome them all with the help of an active and willing US. Through cooperation, compromise and mutual respect, both can emerge stronger and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity. The path is clear, and the world is waiting.
Bibliography
1. Mead, Walter Russell. America's Sticky Power. Foreign Policy. 2004, March/April 2004.
2. Bacevich, Andrew J. Requiem for the Bush Doctrine. Current History. 2005, December 2005.
3. IMF EXTERNAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT. The IMF's Response to the Asian Crisis. International Monetary Fund. [Online] January 1999. [Cited: February 15, 2009.] http://www.imf.org/External/np/exr/facts/asia.htm.
4. Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Eagle has Crash Landed. Foreign Policy. July/August, 2002.
5. Benjamin, Mark. How many have gone to war? Salon.com. [Online] April 12, 2005. [Cited: February 15, 2009.] http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/12/troops_numbers/.
6. US Department of Defense. Casualty Report. U.S. Department of Defense. [Online] February 12, 2009. [Cited: February 15, 2009.] http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf.
7. Associated Press. 1 in 8 returning soldiers suffers from PTSD. MSNBC.com. [Online] June 30, 2004. [Cited: February 15, 2009.] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5334479/.
8. WTVD-TV/DT. Economy raises Army recruitment numbers. ABC.com. [Online] November 13, 2008. [Cited: February 16, 2009.] http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6504538 .
9. Weber, Steven. How Globalization Went Bad. Foreign Policy. January/February, 2007.
10. Weiss, Thomas George, et al. The United Nations and Changing World Politics. Boulder : Westview Press, 2007.
11. Annan, Kofi. "In Larger Freedom": Decision Time at the UN. Foreign Affairs. May/June 2005. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050501faessay84307-p0/kofi-annan/in-larger-freedom-decision-time-at-the-un.html.
12. Albright, Madeleine. United Nations. Foreign Policy. September - October, 2003, 138.
13. Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict. Gartzke, Erik, Li, Quan and Boehmer, Charles. 2, Cambridge : The IO Foundation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001, Vol. 55.
14. United States State Department. Protectionism in the Interwar Period. US Department of State. [Online] [Cited: February 20, 2009.] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm.
15. Miller, John W. U.S. Steelmakers Seek More Tariffs to Fight Imports. The Wall Street Journal. Friday, February 20, 2009, Vol. CCLIII, 41.
16. Black, Byron. Balancing the World Economy. May 19, 2008.
17. Rosett, Claudia. UNder the Law. National Review. January 17, 2007.
18. United States State Department. Reform of the UN system. U.S. Participation in the United Nations. 2006.
19. Thakur, Ramesh and Weiss, Thomas. United Nations "Policy": An Argument with Three Illustration. International Studies Perspectives. 2009, Vol. 10.
Posts
