The UN Suffers...

The League of Nations failed because of its in ability to act, the UN suffers from similar problems, which while not as great will eventually lead to diminishing International support. When I say “diminishing support”, I don’t mean by all or even most countries but by a few strong. Those who have the strength and will to use there muscle in both economical and military fields to express their position in away that the world must listen.

The Will to Power, is always practiced when it comes to growing in any field. Why should the strong listen or be limited by the weak. Why should a country that has the self-belief in its ability to take on the world single handily, wait for International opinion to change and match its own?

Please don’t take what I’m about to say as a conspiracy theory or that this post is about starting a conspiracy thread. It’s looking at facts in an indirect way, while always remembering that there is more then one way of viewing a situation.

As the old saying goes, “Money makes the world go round”. We’re living more and more in a world that is and becoming Capitalistic in its ideology. Capitalism is about free trade between free traders. When one becomes free to trade one also takes on the risk of losing out and becoming poor, or broke. The question that now arises: What do I have to trade? Is it manual labour, intellectual abilities, finite resources, land, money? Capitalism gives the rich more strength to buy up other profit making commodities. Which in the long-term will mean it’s easier for the rich to get richer while the poor need to be more inventive about how they acquire there wealth.

The same is true for the international community. The rich countries have more opportunities to make money as they have more expendable wealth. While the smaller countries become isolated and weak. Only consolidation of the smaller countries can stop the strong from growing by slowly making each small country irrelevant. The main idea behind the EU, EC, EEC and all the other names it has carried, is all to do with consolidation for the purpose of economic and political survival. Even the UN is a form of this. Wars are now really fought on the old battlefields. Money, and wealth of the populace is a more effective form of fighting a war. Instead of only an army of 2 million fighting, you can have a country’s entire populace all using there wealth to buy up other country’s natural wealth. Stock markets allow the individual the ability to invest in big multinational corporations, which have their main base in one country while using up the resources of another. Now, not only is the country fighting, but everybody in that country is directly fighting, in the war “that is not a war”, but is still a very real power struggle. As the more foreign investors who own local resources move the power from the local populace across to the foreign investor.

Back to the problem at hand, Power. This conflict with Saddam is and isn’t about oil. Oil is the black blood of all economies. It’s supplies the energy to all of the industries, powers our TVs, Computers, Cars, Airplanes, etc. And almost everything, I would actually speculate, everything we have, oil has helped in are acquiring of it in some form or another. So to claim that the war is not about oil is mistaken.

America is the single most powerful economical power in the world, I would say China is the second but is currently limited by International trade tariffs. From what I’ve read Saddam control’s potentially 25% to 30% of the entire world’s oil reserves. This finite resource must be controlled and managed. It also gives Saddam power to do deals with other nations and buy allies with oil directly or indirectly. Indirectly Russia, France and Germany see America’s call for change in Iraq for a new leader, one that will lead to a leader who is more willing to deal with America on American terms. Saddam once had strong ties with the American, but over time these have been dissolved.

International terrorism is the main guise that this little dance is being played too. America and the UK would be more lightly to see an increase in terrorism. But if their plans were successful, while terrorism might increase, the scale of the danger would be diminished. So you might have more attacks, but they would be less serious, then if a single big attack occurred with weapons of mass destruction. Russia, France and Germany will see very little international terrorism either way, as they are seen to be sympathetic to Saddam. But I believe this is fuelled more by the fear of America becoming more powerful because it will have easier access to Iraqi oil. While Russia, France and Germany call for peace, they’re really trying to block America’s attempts to access Iraqi oil and using the UN as a tool for doing this. The country that uses the most oil has the potential to produce the most profit making commodities. Both the EU and Russia are now under extreme economical pressures. The European Central Bank’s interest rates are very low, trying to inject new life into the failing economy. While America is also on the back foot it’s in a better position to make a quick recovery, even though some of Bush’s economical decisions would not seem very sound. Europe is becoming a more a second-class citizen in the ever-evolving world. While still important Russia has lost her platform on the world stage, seen as a weak and recovering nation. It’s now Americas time to be strong and without an equal it’s free to do almost anything it wishes, as it would literally take a united world to stand against her.

So back to “Why should the strong listen or be limited by the weak. Why should a country that has the self-belief in its ability to take on the world single handily, wait for International opinion to change and match its own?”

Does a single world power lead to the inevitable irrelevance of the UN? As one country becomes more influential then a combined community of nations, how long before all the other countries fade into the history books. Ultimately is world unity through politics an unrealistic goal? Will the invisible lines that divide land and the water that divides continents be removed only by a single world power expressing itself through imperialistic expansion?

I have a different view of this than you do. I think that the current crisis will heighten the importance of the UN for every country but the US and UK. It’s fascinating to watch all the debate and diplomatic wrangling against the war when anyone who has been following this story knows that it will happen no matter what anyway. The UN, impotent as it is (when it goes against the US anyway), is the only place for most countries to have an international voice.

When the League of Nations broke up, its members allowed it to do so because they had military forces that really meant something on the world stage. Now, really only the United States is powerful enough to not need UN support or to fear UN reprisal. France and friends know very well that rejecting or vetoing the second resolution would push America further away from the UN without actually preventing the war. And what it really shows is not how little they need the UN, but how much they depend on it to have a worldwide voice.

I question, too, the implication that one-government world, or a world-wide federation, is really a desirable thing. Particularly at this stage in the game when many dangers lie in its path. One of the things that the US/UK are after in this is the kind of political stability that would lead to greater participation in consensual multilateral institutions. A democratic Iraq is vastly more likely to comply with international law than Hussein’s is. Look at the “axis of evil.” Are these countries that are regularly cooperating with UN mandates? Hardly. They have made it their business to resist any international order that places any kind of restrictions on them.

But doesn’t that make the US a hypocrite? Aren’t they the biggest rogue state? To buy this argument, you have to forget that most of the big multilateral institutions were created by or in partnership with the US. You have to forget that morality is a luxury of peace time, and there are still many threats to international stability against which strongly worded speeches have little effect. Against the likes of Hussein, North Korea’s nuclear boasting, the latest Bin Laden commercial–the much-hyped 'cowboy’ishness of George W. Bush is the least of the world’s problems. No, the way I see it, it is one of its hopes. Rogue, terrorist-supporting states are now the single biggest danger to international stability, and it is the US’s responsibility as the only military power that really matters, to take out the threat. Lack of UN support does not show illegitmacy on the part of the US, rather is shows the weakness and paralysis of an organization that will not act decisively even against a threat to its own authority.

And, on another topic, I disagree profoundly with the economics to war metaphor, which I gather you are taking literally. But that’s a whole 'nother thing.

I agree with you. “United we stand, but divided we fall.”

It’s true that America doesn’t directly need the UN. But unless it deliberately wants to antagonise world opinion, it has to play the UN game. America also has lots of companies that sell abroad; if America doesn’t play fair with the UN it’s endangering all their international companies profits. Look at the problems McDonnell’s have in the Middle East. Now if the entire world opinion were this way it would weaken America, though not to the point of breaking. America also uses more oil then it can produce locally, so it’s vital that it has allies with large oil resources. America is dependent on international goodwill, so to blatantly ignore the UN would be a big mistake. In my original post I suggested that America is strong enough to go it on it’s own, it’s not, well at least not yet. But the way the world is at the moment it might one day be this strong.

True, but that’s because it will be America/UN peace keeping troops that will be keeping the elected parties in power. A lot of Middle Eastern countries aren’t ready for democracy. Remember the Catholic Church in Europe was originally against democracy, as it was believed that a King derives his power directly from God. There are similarities to this theme in the Middle East today.

Yes, but that is because they have more to lose then gain in following the UN. These countries are also used to a different style of international politics. Which makes it hard for them to get there way by playing the UN game. America is also not the best at international politics, but it knows to get help. England as an ex-empire is very good, and understands all the nuances of international politics.

We’re all at some point in our lives hypocrites. Why do you think a country would be any different?

It depends on whose point of view you’re using when looking at a problem. I believe there are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. The truth will normally be a combination of both, but almost never is one side wholly correct.

Wars that take place on a battlefield must first be fought and won on a political stage. This is where morality and diplomacy come into it. Not everybody views the world and sees the same colours. Our own agendas change how we view every problem it’s all subjective. Wars are an essential part of life, but they don’t always take forms that are readily recognisable.

Fine, but when facing international political conflicts you can’t start saying, “It’s my ball, and I’m going home!” If you want to be apart of a multinational group you have to listen to your partners. I agree terrorism is a very real threat to peace. But I can see opinions change amongst my friends, once they thought America was great, now they think America is no better then a big bully. This war if fought without UN approval will lead to more anti-American feelings.

Haha, yet most good businessmen can quote you Sun Tzu’s, Art of War! Wars take many forms, diplomacy is the war of words, and economics is the war of wealth. Why do you find this profoundly disagreeable?

Pax, very sharp- I very much agree with your analysis of the motivations of the various players.

Essentially, France, Russia and Germany are very troubled by the thought of a situation where the US have control over such a valued asset (the 2nd largest source of oil on earth). It also sets a very dangerous precedent.

All empires fall from grace. Brzezinski offers a very interesting analysis of the factors that brought about the end of the Roman, Chinese, Mongolian, European and British empires in his book “The Grand Chessboard- American primacy and geostrategic imperatives”. I reckon this war on Iraq is an act of hubris.

Does the US need the UN? I believe so. America is now more isolated than it has been in half a century. With this increased isolation comes a decrease in influence. America may have more military might than the next 27 states, but in a nuclear world this power is less significant (as the North Korea situation demonstrates).

Does the US really want to create enemies of France, Germany, China and Russia?

Great stuff.

I will have to start a thread on “economics as war,” but suffice it to say here that economic exchanges–generally speaking–are consensual and mutually beneficial. Businesses compete against each other (hence Sun-Tzu), but when the law is functioning properly, they compete with each other to better serve the consumer. War is coercion, business is persuasion. Obviously it is more complicated, but in principal, I believe this is true.

Brzezinski’s book sounds interesting, I’ll check it out. I don’t know if “hubris” means anything when we speak of countries and not people. Countries are much more rational, and populations are ridiculously fickle. If this war proves to be a mistake, it would not be because others percieve it as arrogant or whatever… it would be for concrete, material reasons. For the same reasons, I’m not worried about squandering the goodwill of UN. How much can China and Chile care, really? I am far more concerned that the US live up to its own committments and promises to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, and I have doubts about Bush’s record here. Setting up lasting, strong democracies in these places will mean far more in the long run than pleasing Jacques Chirac.

By the same token, the war will not automatically make enemies of France, Germany, China and Russia. Remember that the Kosovo war went through NATO because the security council wouldn’t go along, and those wounds healed quickly, because, the fact is, the genocide did have to stop and Milosevic did have to go. I think it will be much the same when Hussein goes. No one likes him, no one will be sad he’s gone, and the long term consequences to international relations will be minimal. All of these countries share many more interests with the US than not. China needs access to US markets so that it can keep up its fast growth and modernization goals. All will want to court the new Iraqi government which we can assume will be strongly predisposed to the US and UK. Look for Germany, France et al to fall all over themselves to contribute to the nation building effort. This way, they can make up with the US without losing face and gain influence and connections with the new government. It will be amazing how quickly the tone changes. It will be in everyone’s interest to forgive and forget.

And if France et al were terrified about the US “having control” of Iraq’s oil–whatever that means–they would join the coalition and take a piece of whatever the US/UK are supposedly getting. On all sides, this war does not reduce to oil only. But that’s for the other thread.

True, but you’ll still need ground troops to finish a war. Nuclear weapons only destroy strength; you can’t win a war alone with them. If North Korea were to use their nukes, all it would do is really piss somebody off and start a war. A solely nuclear war leads ultimately to a stalemate, or a form of genocide. Using nukes to pulverise a country into submission as far as I’m concerned is a war crime.

The only world player I really worry about is China. What if America has difficulties in Iraq? And North Korea continues the nuclear missile tests. Which I believe they have more planned very soon, I think even next week. America says it can handle both of these problems simultaneously. But what if China sees this as a weakened America and invades Taiwan? It’s not very long ago that this invasion was a very real possibility. If China saw that American’s forces were stretched and weak, it might go for it, as I don’t know if the UN would be able to put together a force large enough to stop them. But this is a little far fetched.

Pax, no doubt these are real dangers. My own reading of the situation is that North Korea is trying to force the US to the bargaining table exactly at the moment when the US has the least leverage. So the US proposes “multi-lateral” talks, proposes moving some soldiers out of SK… not real concessions, but maybe enough to keep them calm until military might will cast an oppressive shadow over any US-NK talks about nuclear proliferation. I don’t know enough about military technology to know how real a threat NK’s nuclear bombs and ballistic missles really are… if it’s something a few US cruise missles can take care, then they won’t have much leverage, and they’d know it too. On the other hand…

I really doubt China will attack Taiwan. Bush has been explicit regarding his intention to defend Taiwan in the case of a Chinese invasion. The fighting in Iraq will last days or at most weeks, and all those jets and many other units can be quickly redeployed. Intelligence would give advance warning of Chinese units massing for any invasion. Moreover, Taiwan itself has a not-inconsequential US-supported military. BUT, the most important reason to doubt this scenario is that China has much too much to lose economically. The governments main goal is industrialization and growth. Their economic growth depends on exports to first world. That’s the first thing that would be cut off if they take Taiwan. After a couple decades of high growth they will have the money and resources to become a real superpower. It’s stupid to make an enemy of the US until they have the power to back it up with force, and it won’t be so long.

Yes, my remarks were flippant. To be honest I can’t see it happening either.

It’s difficult to say what it will lead to. If China becomes the future superpower, much depends on how it acts. If the USA just continues to be a superpower, there will sooner or later be an awakening there nevertheless. The USA as it is now just follows a paradigm and as all paradigms it won’t last forever because it isn’t in touch with reality. So, they won’t maybe be making the same Hollywood-movies 100 years from now as they have done the last 50. Something will happen we can’t predict, that’s what usually happens.

I think Europe is most prepared for a paradigm more in touch with reality, manifested in the less importance the nation concept have among youths in at least Western Europe today, especially outside Britain. The maintenance of the nation concept speaks against the UN and the dissolvement of it speaks for a development of the UN.

I think Europe is most prepared for a paradigm more in touch with reality, manifested in the less importance the nation concept have among youths in at least Western Europe today, especially outside Britain. The maintenance of the nation concept speaks against the UN and the dissolvement of it speaks for a development of the UN.

Before you take another hit from the Euro-bong, please realize that the EU is merely trying to catch up with the US idea of a nationalism completely seperate from culture, ethnicity, religion etc. The “nation concept” of the USA is very, very different from the “nation concept” of France. It’s these old ideas of nationalism that have been the barriers to more European integration. As far as the integration that has occurred, the progress does not look promising. All the mistrust and indecision has produced a bureacracy as mammoth, labrythine, incomprehensible, and unworkable as anything previously imagined. I wish them luck; but I’m glad it’s not my government.

As far as the enlightenment and neighbor-friendliness of Western European youth, I can say, for my part, that I’ve never beaten up anyone from Oregon–or from France, for that matter.

Not unless he really deserved it.

I don’t think US nationalism is separated from religion yet. Apparently Bush Sr. didn’t think atheists should be considered citizens because “this is one nation under god”.

Separation of church and state is explicitely guaranteed by the US Constitution and it has been strictly interpreted for more than two hundred years. The fact that George Bush Sr. might publically disagree only proves American tolerance of dissent and pluralism.

George Bush is an Anglican. There are more American Muslims than there are American Anglicans. I know alot of Europeans think that Americans are all fundamentalist Christians and that you get thrown in jail for smoking and that even the women have never seen a breast before, but it just isn’t true.

Don’t know whether this essay on ‘The League of Nations - Success Or Failure?’ is of any interest to someone… written by a colleague of mine.

I think the part in bold sums up the essay perfectly. The League of Nations (LoN) was a failure, and that is the extent of its success, that is, by failing it showed to the next incarnation how to act accordingly, if you wish to have a strong and successful world community, and more importantly the price of failure! But even now the UN is on a slippery footing, which could go along similar lines and end up in tragedy.

LoN like the UN is an ideology, and only an ideology. If I wanted to be cynical I would even go as far as saying that it was propaganda, a way of making people at home feel safe in a divided world. The UN in its self is just a room in some building in New York. What makes it special is the people who come together to discuss important world issues. UN like the LoN is just a piece of paper and a letterhead, but when the people who write these pieces of paper are willing to back it up with action, then and only then is the UN a real world power. Otherwise it’s no different from a fanatic preacher on his soapbox preaching to the bored onlookers.

Most say the LoN failed through inaction; I would say this inaction was caused by different political motivations. I believe anytime an organisation of this type fails its failure will always be tragic, as you will have two opposition powers of somewhat equal force. A world divided, no more will it be country Vs country it’s now World Group A Vs World Group B. The stakes are much higher as division potentially can divide the world into two camps, leading to possibly more world wars! It’s of vital importance that these institutions don’t fail. But, and there’s always a but, the shift in world power is taking it’s toll on the UN’s ideology. Country’s like America and allies splitting off from the main body politic, to do what’s best in it’s own interests will ultimately lead to other countries getting pissed off. Possibly leading to tit-for-tack type of international policy. Look at the undercurrent of anti-French opinion in the US. This is immaturity that will lead to a people only too willing to see its country fight against those damn Frogs!!! How quickly they forget who gave them their Statue of Liberty, and some would say, Statute of Liberties. But I digress.

I see the UN’s biggest weakness is the strength of one of its key members. One country is just too powerful to be kept in line. What kind of world group dynamics will this create? America is poised to become the only player needed in the world. Some might state this is already the case; I would say they’re still not quite there, but very soon. How can the UN succeed if America wants to do it’s own thing? America and its allies or its enemies could break away and create another Cold War. America has a vested interest in keeping its military strength, this is difficult to justify when you have a bad economy and no perceived threat to the homeland. But luckily for them they have a new boogieman, yet some would say there’s no luck when it comes to politics. Either way there’s a new war that needs to be fought by the brave men and women of America. The US subconsciously has a fear mentality. But instead of looking to see what they might have done to incite this, they immediately blame somebody else as if they were completely innocent. So the cycle continues.

I think the world is heading either towards an America with unchecked powers and most countries follow leading to a short-term war (or assassinations) to get the other countries in line, or a divided world were international tension will keep everybody on there toes akin to the cold war.

It also shows how difficult it is for institutions to evolve beyond their flaws internally; often it’s far easier and more effective to destroy the institution and replace it from the base level. (like repairing a Windows installation…)

But even now the UN is on a slippery footing, which could go along similar lines and end up in tragedy.

I don’t know if I agree, Pax. The UN is specifically engineered to supress power: the only real power it possesses is that of restraint. It is a passive, non-interventory institution by design, built for the purpose of controlling its members by committee - it attempts to remove the rogue aspect while still permitting state sovereignty. Many people ask what the UN has done for its constituent states; the question is better formulated in asking what the constituent states haven’t done as result of the United Nations (i.e. pacification).

I agree, and the shift in power is something of a unique occurrence that exposes another flaw in the United Nations - that it recognises statehood and nothing else. This is still a war on terrorism, and the terrorists don’t have an adequate soapbox other than destruction. The UN doesn’t have any facility to delve down into this underground politik, unless we identify the host country of terrorists to be our target (e.g. the Axis); at the same time, “we do not negotiate with terrorists”. A war on terrorism is thus the only conceivable option. The current world order and institutional make-up necessitates military conflict as the only resolution (the question of whether the “Axis of Evil” and terrorism needs to be resolved still remains).

I used to feel that way. Now I’m not so sure. Have you read Paradise and Power by Robert Kagan? I found it to be very stimulating, primarily because it is one of the few almost-objective commentaries on the world situation, and one which isolates positive and negative attributes of both poles in the West. The core argument is that Europe has evolved further than the United States, in that it has managed to manouvre into a position which requires them to possess no power, since so long as they keep up ties with the US, they’re more or less protected (with NATO being a by-product). Kagan puts it better, of course, but essentially it’s difficult for Europe to get really pissed off with the United States, because of what it would lose out on - it would default to its current military power, which is negligible. He also argues the inverse is true, but I wasn’t entirely convinced there.

Absolutely. However, I saw a poster in some socialist cafe the other day promoting an equivalent boycott of US goods. This is nonsensical too. Neither side is being productive, and both are injuring fellow world citizens. Regardless of their government’s position, that isn’t fair.

Definitely. Their veto in the UNSC seems more tangible , even though the rest of 'em have it too, because they actually feel that they’re justified in using it. It must be said, that’s the point in having it, but the past year has shown an invisible imbalance in the make-up of the Security Council, and I don’t know how it can be remedied other than to remove said powers. Which will guarantee a US removal from the institution. Good luck Kofi!

The sad thing is that the military spending is still just over 3% of the GDP, which isn’t much at all; yet the actual sum of money seems extortionately inflated.

For international peace there must be the cooperation of all sovereign states. Take what America and Allies did, this was not quite right to do, as it didn’t directly have UN backing. But because enough countries backed it outside the UN institution America felt vindicated, so had confidence going into Iraq. I believe the UN is still not a good model for a World Authority, as all international disagreements should be conducted through the UN, not just the ones countries want to bring to the table. But that being said I don’t think there is a perfect model, as country participation is vital for the UN, as you’ve said. My argument is that if the UN lacks participation it has failed, because this is the same reason why the LoN failed.

I think this is a double-edged sword, as most terrorist groups normally have some legitimate gripe with the ones they are terrorising. The problem is that a small group might get no time politically because they don’t have a strong voice, as in democracy it’s all about the numbers. They then resort to terrorism to get noticed, but then are band from the political discussion, a catch-22. Which only leads to more violence, as they feel no one is listening anyway, ‘So what choice do we have?’

No, is he America?

NATO is a by-product of the Cold War and is more then lightly to cause instability, than help to resolve problems. As you know it was created to be a counterbalance against the threat of the USSR, which is no longer a perceived threat. Also not everybody is a member, so in this way it undermines the UN’s all encompassing inclusion policy. NATO members have this commitment, which is no longer required and I believe they should reinvest these energies into creating a UN based defence force. But of course America wouldn’t like this, as it would be possible that this UN based force would become as powerful as America. But I believe that the UN will only ever be a piece of paper, until they have the power of an army to backup their decrees.

I know it works both ways, that’s why so much damage can be done.

That is the official number, but I know things like Black-Ops and other secret military projects don’t get displayed on the yearly budget report. To be honest there is no way of really knowing how much America is spending on its armies. Or another way of looking at it, 1/4 of the worlds wealth, now what’s 3% percent of that? Probable quite a lot!