Reaction to Matthew Yglesias' comments

Yglesias' distinction between "charity-oriented" and "security-related" U.N. institutions might be useful as a way to understand the difficulties of moving the U.N. to effective action. However, I think Dean's earlier point about "East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Security Council process for listing terrorist organizations" belies Yglesias' that the U.N. "is bound to be ineffectual when it comes to confronting humanitarian problems" because of it's open membership. That said, I completely agree with him for the reason he states that, "The US needs to start moving away from the model that's prevailed since 1991 where we are essentially the sole provider of global public goods." However, it's not at all clear to me that this can't be accomplished within the context of the U.N., which is the conclusion he seems to reach.

One thought, playing off of the point Yglesias and others are making about regional security organizations, might be to create regional security institutions as part of the overall U.N. structure. A possible model already exists in the form of the U.S. military's global command structure, which divides the world into regional unified commands (U.S. Central Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, etc.)

U.S. military too overstretched for intervention anyway

Dean - I see your point about our willingness to commit troops. Even if one doesn't think we have a duty to intervene militarily both as the world's sole superpower and based on our professed national values, I think there's a strong national security case to be made for U.S. military intervention in Darfur. Sudan has been a terrorist safe haven, and the instability and suffering caused by genocide there creates the conditions that breed terrorism. Add to that the fact that notable neo-cons are arguing for U.S. military intervention, one wonders why we haven't been willing to send even some small contingent of U.S. troops to show the kind of seriousness you suggest. The word in the military from several of my former colleagues is that the U.S. military really is unbelievably over-stretched right now because of the war in Iraq. I do wonder what changes might we make to the Security Council that would create stronger pressure for military intervention when it's appropriate. Of course, unless we're willing to create a credible U.N. force independent of the whims of individual states, I suspect the "put your money (or soldiers) where you mouth is" issue you raise will always come into play.

Matthew Yglesias' addition to our discussion

The American Prospect's Matthew Yglesias mentioned our dicussion on his blog yesterday, so I thought I'd share what he had to say to give everyone an opportunity to respond:

I'm all for improving the UN, but I think this may be barking up the wrong tree. The UN, it seems to me, is primarily valuable for its more charity-oriented institutions than for its security-related ones. In addition, it serves a valuable quasi-asperational purpose of asserting that all mankind is a member, in a sense at least, of some sort of global community that would ideally be regulated by a common norm of justice. That's important, but in terms of getting concrete things done, it's counterproductive. Any organization in which the governments of Burma and Sudan are members in good standing is bound to be ineffectual when it comes to confronting humanitarian problems. At the same time, it's a very good thing that we have an organization in which the governments of Burma and Sudan count as members in good standing.

I think the right way to cope the UN's limits is exactly the way the Truman and Eisenhower administrations did -- by create other, more limited international organizations that are better equipped to other tasks. But we can't just rely on the old regional organizations -- NATO and so forth -- we need new regional security organizations (where appropriate, underwritten by the US) that can act more nimbly than the UN. The oft-mooted proposal for some kind of global alliance of democracies is in the right spirit, though I think it would be bound to founder on the vagueness of what counts as a democracy. The general idea, though, is that you would think of a purpose for a given organization and then come up with a list of member states that would be well-suited to accomplishing that goal. The US needs to start moving away from the model that's prevailed since 1991 where we are essentially the sole provider of global public goods. We're not especially good at many aspects of this, it's not especially in our interests to be bearing such a high proportion of the burden, and the rest of the world has come to resent rather than appreciate it. A simple American retreat isn't the best solution, but we should be looking to put institutions and systems in place that don't require constant US-presence on the front lines of everything.

leadership, sovereignty

David -- two nails, both hit right on the head. While the U.S. is showing admirable purposefulness on Darfur in the Council, unless we are willing to participate in a peacekeeping mission (with actual personnel), the world will say, "Look, if the U.S. isn't going to commit troops, the problem can't be THAT important." Sierra Leone has a large British contingent. The Australians were the key to the East Timor success. I am not sure an African Union force deployed to Darfur will have serious weight and authority -- but it is worth a shot. To answer your question, I would stop short of saying the Security Council system for dealing with such crises is basically sound. I would say, though, that it is the best mechanism we've got, it has worked in the past, and it can work again.

On sovereignty, this is the big question. Can a country LOSE its "right" to sovereignty if its behavior toward its own people and/or neighbors is so awful that it becomes a threat to regional or even global stability? I would say yes, but then -- who makes the call? Some members of the Council have mixed records at best in terms of treatment of its own citizens and neighbors. Nevertheless, I do think there are cut and dry cases, ones where the P-5 members have been -- or should have been -- united. Rwanda certainly should have been such an instance, and the Council tragically blew it.

Is the problem simply a matter of leadership?

Dean - It sounds like you're arguing that the basic Security Council process is sound, but situations like Rwanda and Darfur merely require big-power leadership. How does that hold up in the current situation, where the U.S. seems to be taking a fairly assertive role in the U.N. when it comes to Darfur? Is it that the U.S. hasn't shown enough leadership? Is it that our capacity for leadership has been diminished?

James - I agree with you that we want a global organization "that can actually get stuff done." (No surprise, since I framed the original question.) I also agree that limiting U.N. membership to democracies wouldn't eliminate any of these problems. (In any case, is there an internationally accepted definition of "democracy"? Has the U.N. ever outlined criteria for classifying a nation as "democratic"? This could be it's own discussion.) However, I disagree that the U.N. gives nations a plausible "skirt to hide behind." Where the impact of an issue on a country isn't clear and imminent enough for that country to act of its own accord without outside pressure, that country, in the absence of a U.N., willfully -- and perhaps rationally -- ignores it. Or worse, precisely because the issue has no clear or imminent impact, the country remains blissfully ignorant until it's too late to do anything about it. The U.N. at least forces that country to be aware of the problem and to take some public position on its willingness to act.

Traci, Colette, and others have discussed "preventing another world war" as an important central purpose of the U.N. It strikes me that the tension between sovereignty and human rights, which is really one of the central questions of this whole discussion, exists precisely because the U.N. was born out of an effort to prevent another world war. For most of the U.N.'s existence, sovereignty has been valued above all because of the perception (I'd argue misperception) that if every nation at least respected each other's sovereignty, we would avoid another world war. Remember that Bush 41 declined to go to Baghdad because his goal -- and the goal of the U.N. -- was simply to restore sovereignty to a nation whose sovereignty had been violated, and once Iraq was out of Kuwait, that balance had been restored.

only as good as its members

James, you raise great points. Still, I can point to three recent UN successes: East Timor, Sierra Leone, and the Security Council process for listing terrorist organizations (which gives global legitimacy -- and the force of international law -- to our efforts to combat terrorism).

So I stand by the indispensable line. The UN provides the United States with a means to address global problems/crises that do not pose a direct, immediate threat to us before they get out of hand. The question I ask myself is, why does the Security Council deal with some crises moderately well, while other disasters (Darfur now, Rwanda 10 years ago) get neglected? The three successes above have something in common. Leadership by big powers or key allies of big powers made them happen (UK in SL, Australia in ET, us with the terrorist lists). My feeling is that the UN is only as good as its members, and will have successes only when key countries -- and we're the keyest of them all -- provide leadership. So I think the system CAN work, it just needs a good shove sometimes.

On another point, not all UN members are equal. Iran does not have a veto in the Security Council and would be hard pressed to be elected a member at this point. Its word in other UN fora simply does not have the same weight as even Norway or Turkey. In other words, membership in the UN does not automatically confer legimitacy or even equal standing in the community of nations.

Here are my top 10 UN member states in terms of influence, off the top of my head:
1. U.S.
2. U.K.
3. France
4. Russia
5. China
6. Japan (biggest $ contributor)
7. Germany (a leading contributor)
8. India (population, seen as a leader of developing world)
9. Egypt (often speaks for Arab world)
10. South Africa (often speaks for Africa, and Mandela is a vital int'l figure)

Finally, on Israel. The UN itself has done nothing that directly threatens Israel's security or legitimacy. Member states of the UN have tried repeatedly to harm Israel's interests via GA and SC resolutions (among other efforts), but the United States has proved on dozens of occasions that it will use its veto in the Council to strike down any dangerous or unfair resolutions. I'm not saying Israel is beloved or even gets a fair deal (it had to beg and plead to become even a peripheral member of a regional group), and the zionism = racism GA resolution makes me sick. But -- the veto. And the UN gives Israel a place where it can forcefully and publicly make its case.

Sorry for rambling.

Indispensable?

I must ask Dean, what exactly about the UN makes it indispensable? What accomplishments, past and present, would cause you to dish out such high praise? Does the UN’s perennial tardiness in dealing with crises and constant hostility to Israel really warrant such a commendation?

I would even argue that the UN’s existence, as currently constituted, has two pernicious effects, one direct and the other indirect. The direct effect is that UN membership wrongly confers an undeserved legitimacy upon some of the world’s most illegitimate governments. Morally, would we not be better off shunning the Castros and the Mugabes and the Khadaffys (pre-millennial reformation) rather than pretending they’re worthy of a seat at the table?

The indirect effect is that the UN gives each nation a plausible skirt to hide behind when they insist any problem in the world is not its responsibility. For instance, as the world’s ranking economic and military power, AIDS in Africa is America’s moral responsibility. But it would be quite easy for any American leader to insist that such issues are a part of the UN’s portfolio and our scarce resources would be better put to building another super-collider.

UN is deeply flawed but still indispensable

I believe the UN is deeply flawed but still indispensable. While the General Assembly is certainly a toothless debating society (its resolutions do not have force of law), the Security Council comes much closer to being able to live up to the commitments in the Charter. With certain limitations, countries must compete to serve on the Council, and all nations can (and do) lobby forcefully for and against candidates. In 2000, the U.S. campaigned against Sudan's candidacy and won -- that is, Sudan lost its bid for election to a two-year stint on the Council (Mauritius got that honor). Still, flaws. Instead of Sudan we get Syria. And even if all 15 members were ideal international citizens, it still would be hard to ensure that world wars -- or smaller but every bit as nasty genocidal ones -- don't flare up. It is rare for Council members to opt to act for the good of the "international community" instead of their own interest. Still, Council action can help keep people from killing each other -- especially when a powerful member (or powerful ally of a powerful member) takes the lead, such as in East Timor and Kosovo.

Alternate models? The EU is a group of fairly like-minded democracies -- I really admire the EU in many ways, but it has not yet proven able to tackle security crises. Look at the Balkans. It is because of American leadership that children can play in playgrounds in Sarajevo now.

Seats at the Table

Commenter Russ offers, “Fundamentally the UN has to remain a place where every nation, no matter how undemocratic within reason, can go to stake their claims and have their voices heard.” Within reason? So Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was within reasonable shouting distance of being a democracy?

Again, if you want to have a global debating society then Saddam’s government had to have a seat at the table. But if you want to have an organization that is a positive force for good in the world, then the spiritual descendants of Khomenei and Stalin can’t possibly have a role. Since this conversation has been started not with the idea of sponsoring more effective debates but instead with preventing future Darfurs, I’m concluding that we want an organization that can actually get stuff done.

If we’re having going to have an organization that in fact intends to acomplish things like preventing this Darfur let alone the next one, at least a modicum of moral clarity will be necessary. Now, I just tossed out the “Democracies” idea as a jumping off point, but we might want to remember in streamlining things that Hitler was democratically elected and that even some modern democracies have few moral qualms about aiding nuclear proliferation.

In other words, limiting membership to democracies would hardly be a cure-all.

(Additionally, Tracy asks, "Do we not believe that, even among nations as diverse as the U.S. and Iran, we can come to some agreement about the non-negotiables (one of which I would think is genocide!)? " Sorry Tracy, but you'd think wrong. Iran actively advocates genocide against the Jews.)

But does that make it any more effective?

Could the mandate be so narrow and still deserve such a grand organizational title as "United Nations"? Do we not believe that, even among nations as diverse as the U.S. and Iran, we can come to some agreement about the non-negotiables (one of which I would think is genocide!)? And if we can't, if there are nations that couldn't come to such an agreement, then I'd be with James in suggesting that they're out of the club. If we can, then the U.N.'s only hope for continued existence is to be much more consistent and forceful in acting in support of that mission.

What does it mean to prevent world war, Collette? Would, say, a pre-emptive attack on a nation believed to have WMD and the capability to use it be justifiable action to prevent a larger war? On the flip side, would the world community choose to ignore situations like the Sudan or Chechnya because to intervene might spread the conflict to a larger scale? Should the U.N. invest in the economies of third world countries on the theory that poverty encourages conflict? How could one ensure that "preventing another world war" didn't result in us ending right back where we are, with virtually all nations nominally committed to a grand expanse of activities that resulted in a toothless global organization?

Maybe the aim is too high

I think the idea of a federation of democracies is interesting, but raises its own whole series of issues about legitimacy. I'm tempted to question whether maybe the scope of the UN Charter is just too big to function realistically. It's a worthwhile thought experiment, I think, to say the following:

Because we are a global community, there is fundamental value in having a truly global body like the United Nations. Because global values vary so significantly, however, the acceptable and functional aims of such a body have to be relatively limited. If such a body accomplished nothing more than serving to prevent another world war, that would be worthwhile. Therefore, should we consider dramatically narrowing the UN mandate to something like that mandate, and then seek to accomplish its other aims through other bodies, such as a federation of democracies or current regional alliances?

Substitute or Supplement?

Actually my initial post was inspired by the UN’s charter, which to my mind introduces a lot of fancy rhetoric to the organization but given the diversity of its membership the charter is hopelessly irrelevant.

For instance, take the part that vows “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small .” Many UN members have a far different definition of “fundamental human rights” than the American or Western European views. Implicit in that chapter is religious tolerance, but obviously such a demand if rigorously inisted upon, would discourage or indeed prohibit membership for many of the world’s nations (and countries! Thanks go to commenter Brian for offering such a valuable distinction – what a remarkable nose for nuance!).

So, if the UN is to be a force for positive good, can it have a membership that defines “positive good” as differently as the United States and Iran do? I think not, and thus the membership has to be pared to countries that at least share some common values and have a fighting chance of defining progress in similar ways. There can still be an organization for chatting, because that is an important thing in spite of my use of the demeaning term “chatting.” But for an organization to be nimble enough and forceful enough to do things like halt genocides, it will have to be a lot more “united” than the United Nations. United in what? In principles, values, respect for the individual, and regard for freedom and human dignity.

Robert Bartley, in his final months, was proposing as a substitute or supplement to the UN a federation of democracies. What does everyone think – might that be a good place to start?

How does the U.N. answer that question today?

Thanks for helping give us some focus, James. My initial response to your question is to look at what the U.N. at present claims are its reasons for being:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

I'm not sure how most of that could be accomplished merely through a debating society, although bringing the nations of the world together for peaceful debate certainly has value.

FIRST PRINCIPLES

I think the conversation has to start with first principles. Precisely, what is the U.N. supposed to be?

If it’s supposed to be a place where all the countries of the world can sit down and chat, that’s one thing and probably a laudable one. If its aim is to be a positive force for good in the world and to back up that aim with some actual muscle, that goal would suggest that some countries which are most definitely not forces for good don’t merit a seat at this particular table.

So which is it: International debating society or something much grander? Any thoughts?

But is there a compelling reason not to eliminate veto power?

You're right that the U.N. would never have come about without giving the World War II victors Security Council veto power (and permanent seats), but is there a compelling reason not to eliminate veto power now? From the perspective of the five permanent members, any change in status quo means giving up some power. But are any of the permanent members likely to withdraw from the U.N. over it? I suspect not. (Although I might be giving them too much credit.)

Thinking about it another way, is there a good reason for these five nations -- or any nation, for that matter -- to have veto power? From my parochial American perspective, I like that we can use our veto assert our power and soveriengty. But beyond narrow parochialism, I'm not sure why it's necessary. Certainly, if we were creating a system from scratch and we weren't concerned with coaxing participation, I can't think of why we would give grant veto power to anyone.

You're right that the U.N. would never have come about without giving the World War II victors Security Council veto power (and permanent seats), but is there a compelling reason not to eliminate veto power now? From the perspective of the five permanent members, any change in status quo means giving up some power. But are any of the permanent members likely to withdraw from the U.N. over it? I suspect not. (Although I might be giving them too much credit.)

Thinking about it another way, is there a good reason for these five nations -- or any nation, for that matter -- to have veto power? From my parochial American perspective, I like that we can use our veto assert our power and soveriengty. But beyond narrow parochialism, I'm not sure why it's necessary. Certainly, if we were creating a system from scratch and we weren't concerned with coaxing participation, I can't think of why we would give grant veto power to anyone.

But maybe eliminating veto power isn't necessary. This op-ed by David Clark, who was a special advisor to the British Foreign Office, suggests a different approach that might be constructive:

If he really wanted to push a radical agenda, he could do worse than propose that the power to impose sanctions and authorise the use of military force should be exercised by the UN membership as a whole. The general assembly has its problems, but is a far more representative body than the security council and is becoming more so with the passage of time. The days when its membership consisted largely of the representatives of military juntas and one-party states are long gone. The remarkable progress of democratic ideas in Latin America, eastern Europe and parts of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa over the past two decades means that two-thirds of UN members now have elected governments. There is every reason to believe that this figure will continue to rise. Isn't it time for the world body to shake off the colonial assumptions on which it was founded?

It's an interesting thought, although I'm not necessarily convinced the General Assembly would do any better than the Security Council on issues of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Changing Veto power isn't that easy

What you're talking about is a fundamental restructuring of the
Security Council. Does that mean extending the veto to all council
members? Does it mean changing who has veto power? Does it mean
eliminating veto power all together?

Let's say you want the middle option. What objective criteria could be
used at this point to determine who has veto power? I think probably
the only reason we were able to establish a Security Council in the
first place was because we had a group of winners who were just plain
able to call the shots. I'm having trouble imagining how we could
determine and get sign-off on an objective set of criteria for who
should have veto power now, especially because you couldn't do that, I
don't think, without also opening up the discussion to which countries
should serve on the council in the first place.

Why should Russia and China have veto power?

I'll kick off the discussion with the following thought: We need to re-visit the power of countries to veto Security Council resolutions simply because their predecessor governments were on the winning side of World War II. China and Russia, which themselves have dubious records when it comes to ethnic cleansing, and which have demonstrable financial interests in Sudan, ought not have the right to veto more assertive U.N. action in Sudan.

Presenting the RIPPLE OF HOPE U.N. Modernization Project

As the situation in Sudan has made clear, under its current charter, the United Nations has proven itself unable to prevent or stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. Therefore, we've assembled this panel of contributors with the hope that an intelligent, spirited discussion will produce concrete ideas to update the U.N. Charter and correct this systemic and moral failure. In the spirit of recent Security Council resolutions, initially this will be a 30-day effort. Recognizing that it's too late to change the United Nations in ways that will effect the present, our goal is to recommend changes that could prevent another Rwanda or Sudan a decade from now.