The Diplomat’s Secret of the UN
January 13, 2009
I think it’s high time I reveal a secret to my readers about the United Nations. This isn’t a classified, state secret; it’s been too secret to be written. Ok, here goes. The United Nations was designed to be a tool of US foreign policy. There, I’ve said it, in bold. I piddle around yahoo answers quite a bit, where the UN is frequently belittled, and then while reading Consul-at-Arms, I was referred to an article written by Hugh Fitzgerald that basically says the UN is “thoroughly infiltrated and taken over by Muslims at every level,” with reader comments proposing death to the UN, etc. So, with a laughable Human Rights Council, a General Assembly that regularize demonizes the US, and a plethora of ineffective sub-agencies, how can I say that the UN is just a tool of US foreign policy?
The General Assembly is just a place for impotent countries to speak out. That’s all it’s there for. Look at articles 10-13 of the UN Charter. The only authority the assembly has is to “discuss,” “consider,” or call things to the attention of the Security Council. My favorite part is that if the Security Council is talking about something, the General Assembly isn’t allowed to. Brilliant.
The UN organizations scattered across Europe don’t matter. The UN organizations with power are all in the U.S. (the IMF, the World Bank, and usually the Security Council).
The US has a veto on the Security Council, picks the head of the World Bank, and is the only country that has a veto in the IMF.
I know it’s popular to say that the UN doesn’t get anything done on one hand, and on the other to say that it just needs to be magnified so that it can be more effective, but the truth is, that it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. It gives the U.S. more foreign policy options and does very little to limit U.S. action. We’ve got the best of both worlds. Anyway, that’s the secret. Don’t tell anyone who’s not American. I’m sure no one else will read this, right?
Tagged as:
UN
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Too bad. I know now.
And I'm Canadian.
;<)
Right. And the US absolutely doesn’t want there to be any military intervention in Darfur to stop genocide, or stricter sanctions on Iran.
Don’t let China and Russia escape their responsibility for those problems. The last time the UN took crucial military action was during the Korean War when the SU boycotted.
But either way, it still has some function for policing and nation building and health issues.
@Commentator: Well, you’ve earned enough Hegemonist cred to hear the secret. =D
@Johnson: Thanks for the thoughtful comment. While I disagree about Korea (I would include Desert Storm and East Timor as “crucial”) you makea good point about Russia and China. On the other hand, I would argue that Russia and China were our allies at the founding of the UN, and so it was designed to be a tool for each of us. (I would also argue that most countries can use the UN as a tool of their foreign policies as well, but when we founded the UN we stacked the cards in our favor.) Seriously though, thanks for the comment.
I’ve linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2009/01/re-diplomats-secret-of-un.html
I’ve just started reading “Of Paradise and Power” by Robert Kagan. Though I’m only a quarter of the way in (it is a short book), this post is similar to his point.
Many of these institutions (or at least, their precursor foundations) were created by weaker powers trying to limit the ability of a larger power to act unilaterally. The UN was based on The League of Nations, which was the US’ attempt to create an institution that could limit the ability of the larger European powers to act in a unilateral fashion. Ironically, now that the US is the great power, it is weaker powers, such as the EU and others, that seek to force the US into these institutional norms as a way to obviate the usefulness of the US’ significant military advantage.
A bit too simplistic. Though of course the UN caters to the interests of major powers (and the US is the most major power without doubt), it isn’t a puppet.
One rare example of UN independence was the failure of the US to secure a clear resolution condoning the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (the infamous 2nd resolution).
@Anon Of course, UN independence really doesn’t mean anything because they rarely have any teeth. Who cares if the UN gets mad about something? What are they going to do — send blue hat peacekeepers with unloaded rifles like they did in the former Yugo? It’s usually the US and Britain that are the teeth of any UN action (with forays by the French, but usually and specifically the FFL.) Whether the UN is a puppet or not, it’s rather impotent. It’s like a roomful of cats that one must convince to stand on their hind legs.
We all expect so much from the U.N., to solve all the world’s problems, yet its resources and capacity are so limited, that it is doomed to fall short of those expectations. The U.N. succeeds well in contributing in non-political areas, including trade and commerce, agriculture, science and technical, as well as peacekeeping. Though the U.S. may be the principal beneficiary of “peace”-enabled commerce and political stability, the weaker nations benefit also. U.N. peacekeepers cost on average 1/9th that of U.S. troops (Amb. Susan Rice), so its also economical. The U.N. is also more functional at getting traction on regional problems than other regional organizations (OAU in Sudan, OAS in Haiti, ASEAN in E.Timor and Cambodia, NATO in Afghanistan(?)), partly because their broad membership includes non-stakeholders. Though the U.S. is big, it is uneconomical to negotiate every agreement bilaterally in a fully-connected mesh; better that all parties come together in one place. Also, let’s not be so cynical to think that bloodshed and human misery are not a political or moral motivator for the U.S.
The U.N. can be a vehicle for consensus and cooperation, enabling progress on real problems. It is however, a club of 192 members, generally suffering from the same poison of self-interested cynicism as the U.S. Congress. Just like Congress, the U.N. is easy to blame for any failure on any problem. This is a failure of leadership, not by Ban Ki Moon, but by its membership. The U.S. seems now to be turning in the direction of constructive consensus-building leadership in the U.N. While that may just prove your thesis here, I think, generally, what is good for the U.S. (in the long term) is good for the world. When U.N. member nations feel they’re not just being manipulated, the genuine cooperation follows. When the U.N. works, the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world, benefits.