September 17, 2002
Don't
Take the UN Too Seriously
In
their speeches before the United Nations both President Bush and
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, in different ways and probably
for different purposes, made a couple of mistakes that could easily
come back to bite them. The chief mistake was to take UN resolutions
and statements by diplomats and political leaders too seriously,
too literally. World affairs are always greased by a certain level
of hypocrisy, by a reasonably shared understanding that most of
the participants don’t really mean what they are saying. If they
did, they would probably make even more mischief for those over
whom they claim authority than they do already.
Plenty
of people have noted by now that the president did not present any
new information about an imminent, clear and present danger from
Iraq, although something might yet be presented that would make
that case. Saddam is, after all, a nasty customer and he might well
be working on nuclear weapons. But what the president presented,
perhaps appropriately considering where he was speaking, was a laundry
list of past UN resolutions and mandates that Saddam has defied
or ignored, many of them well over a decade old. To be sure, he
presented the case fairly thoroughly and comprehensively. As an
opening statement by the prosecution in a trial this wouldn’t have
been bad. In a trial with due process, however, it would be followed
by a statement from the defense and presentation of evidence, along
with cross-examination and expert witnesses, before a verdict was
rendered. Something like that is now underway, but in a much less
systematic, thorough and fair manner than is usually the case even
in poorly conducted trials. And nobody knows for sure who the real
jury is.
A
number of people who fancy themselves enlightened internationalists,
like foreign affairs columnist Jim Hoagland of the Washington
Post, profess to be delighted at the Bush speech. The fact that
Bush went to the UN, that he used UN resolutions to make the case
against Saddam, that he challenged the UN to take its own resolutions
seriously, was for Hoagland tantamount to a "Nixon-to-China
moment." The "unilateralist" administration had embraced
multilateralism and the institutions of the international world
order were the chosen instruments of action. Oh rejoice, for the
Prodigal Son seems to be returning to the faith of his fathers.
I
suspect Mr. Hoagland has taken Mr. Bush too literally – or is trying
to affect the outcome through his interpretation. One doubts if
Dubya actually has a coherent multilateralist – or any other – vision
of the way the United States should operate in the world. For whatever
series of reasons he deems to have decided that he wants to get
Saddam, and he’ll likely adopt whatever intellectually jumbled mix
of policies and actions he thinks might help to accomplish "regime
change" reasonably soon. One method has been to take all the
various resolutions passed in conjunction with the last Iraqi war
literally and as easily understood instances of clear violations.
But neither the resolutions nor the violations have been as clear
as Mr. Bush claimed they were or as he no doubt wishes they were.
UN
resolutions almost always have ambiguous phrases and provisions
that give all concerned a bit of wiggle-room when it comes to interpretation.
They are written by diplomats, after all – people charged with going
abroad and lying for their countries – and calibrated to get support
from delegates who have no particular interest in the subject at
hand or might have reservations about the course of action implied.
Often they are more oriented toward posturing than action – consciously,
purposely and perhaps thankfully.
All
this is not necessarily a bad thing. The UN includes countries with
a wide range of purposes and attitudes – though many of the diplomats
who end up there take on the institutional coloring and interests
of the UN or the vaunted "international community" more
than the interests of their particular nation after a while. It
is almost certainly better for the rest of us that they should be
posturing and blowing off steam than actually taking action to promote
their various agendas, many of which are arrogant and harmful at
best.
The
UN is not especially good at promoting peace, development or liberty,
and it’s probably better for all concerned if it didn’t try all
that often. Resolutions with ambivalent or ambiguous phrases are
probably less harmful to the world than resolute and determined,
united and unified action. Better to do no harm than to engage in
too much foolishness. The UN, and to a great extent the world order,
after all, are built on levels of ambiguity that are seldom acknowledged
in part because it is potentially dangerous to make too much of
them.
All
the member states of the UN are said to be sovereign, and the world
order is predicated to a great extent on the belief that member
states will not meddle in the internal affairs of other states so
long as said states refrain from invasion or aggression. But sovereignty
in the affairs of nation-states is seldom if ever absolute. States
meddle in the internal affairs of other states all the time. Larger,
more prosperous and powerful countries have more influence and license
to meddle than do smaller, less powerful countries.
On
balance, however, it is viewed as inadvisable to inquire too closely
into such meddling, or to try to define the limits of allowable
meddling. It might very well keep conflict at tolerable levels to
pretend to accept the myth of sovereignty and simply wink and nod
when it is not respected in practice. Taking it all too literally
could reveal some of the contradictions at the heart of the so-called
system.
Another
contradiction has to do with the desire of many to "transcend"
national sovereignty through international organizations like the
UN and various other trans-national bodies. The international bureaucrats
and diplomats who are really working to make national sovereignty
obsolete can seldom afford to say so in so many words. So they maintain
certain necessary levels of hypocrisy. And insofar as hypocrisy
is the tribute vice (conflict and subversion in the international
arena) pays to virtue (peace and minimizing outright bloody conflict),
we might well be grateful for some of this hypocrisy.
Insisting
that UN resolutions be taken literally, as President Bush seemed
to be doing in his UN speech, could upset this delicate balance
of idealism, realism and hypocrisy. It might begin to undermine
some of the unstated and unacknowledged assumptions that serve in
part to keep our titular leaders from being even worse than they
are now. Who knows, it might even help to hasten the end of the
era of the nation-state in international relations – a development
some historians including John Lukacs (his recent book At
the End of an Age is fascinating reading) is underway already.
Insisting
that UN resolutions really do say what they seem to say and that
they should be taken seriously in that spirit might have other effects
the Bushies might not welcome. The UN has passed plenty of resolutions
critical of Israel over the years, that seem to mandate (although
generally with enough wiggle-room that clever international lawyers
can argue either way) that Israel withdraw from a great deal of
territory that country has no intention of withdrawing from under
current circumstances.
But
if UN resolutions are to be applied literally and simplistically
to Saddam Hussein, it won’t be long before certain parties will
insist that consistency demand they be applied rigorously to Israel
(indeed, plenty of people have been demanding just that for years).
Will that be a welcome development to the neos at the Weekly
Standard and New Republic, or to the administration itself?
All
this discussion, of course, runs the risk of exposing just how empty
is any UN claim to either physical or moral power or authority.
Kofi Annan may sputter and fume and offer gratuitous advice, but
he has no troops. He came very close in his speech last Thursday
to acknowledging that the chief value of the UN is to give cover
and the appearance of legitimacy to powerful nations intent on a
course of action they will pursue with or without the UN. It might
be useful for all of us to take note of this function, but making
it more widely known can hardly do much to enhance UN claims to
be the last, best hope of humankind for peace, order and stability
in a troubled world.
Both
President Bush and Kofi Annan may end up sorry that they upset the
delicate balance of hypocrisy on which so much of their power and
authority rests.
Alan Bock
Please
Support Antiwar.com
Antiwar.com
520 South Murphy Avenue #202 Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server Credit Card Donation Form
Your
contributions are tax-deductible
|