Ever since I posted this longish quote from Dick Holbrooke about the U.N., I’ve been thinking about it. Particularly, the part where he says:
The large number of disputes and wars that the U.N. hasbeen unable to prevent or solve since 1945 are a clear demonstration ofthe limits of the organization. But this is a result of the actions ofthe member states themselves, not something called “the U.N.” What happens in the U.N. issimply a reflection of the positions of its 191 members, whoseambassadors take positions under instructions from their capitals.
Every time I read that paragraph, it kind of got caught in my mental throat (ew!), and I think I only just now realized why.
Holbrooke is right. The reason he’s right is the reason the U.N. isn’t working now, and the reason that I’m highly optimistic about Kofi Annan’s planned reforms. The problem with the U.N. isthat, although it was conceived in the sweet afterglow of democracy’striumph on the European continent, it’s a fundamentally constructivistinstitution. For those unfamiliar, constructivism is the school ofinternational relations that sees the world about the same way weimagine a group of people: Their actions are shaped by their views ofthemselves, and their views of one another. (Contrast this withrealism, where nations’ actions are shaped mostly by the ineffablecertainty that everyone is trying to kill them.) But one ofconstructivism’s vital components is that the international world orderhas no particular direction in which it is inexorably headed. It seesthe world as a giant, Mill-ian free market of ideas where the dominantideologies are simply those with the best salesmen. All it takes forNaziism to triumph is for Hitler to be a more persuasive ideologue thanyou. All it takes for radical Islam to triumph is for Bin Laden’s ideasto look better than yours. Constructivists see no hard-wiring tohistory; the dynamic itself is completely malleable.
The reason Holbrooke’s statement bothered me so much is this: The U.N. hasa stated goal of promoting ideas like political freedom, peacefulconflict resolution, and human rights - ideas that tend to flourish indemocracies, and wilt under dictators. Structurally, though, the U.N. isdesigned to shrug and embody the consensus of its members, even whenthis consensus is decidedly opposed to these fundamental goals. It is,just as Holbrooke said, simply an aggregation of the preferences of itsmember nations. At one point immediately before the Iraq war began,Iraq was set to head the U.N. DisarmamentCommission. In January 2003, Libya was given the chairmanship of theHuman Rights Commission. Whatever you think of these nations, thisseems a little bit like putting, say, Alberto Gonzales in charge of ourtorture policy. The U.N. simply has noinstitutional bias towards accomplishing its own goals. Plainly, if itis ever going to be as effective as it should be, this has to change.
That’s why Annan’s reforms, and the conversation they are starting, are so encouraging. Creating a U.N. Democracy Caucus, which enjoys surprising bipartisan support, would go a long way. All indications are that Annan wants to make the U.N. moreresponsive to American goals; whatever you think of the Bush foreignpolicy, no nation can do more to encourage democracy worldwide than wecan. In fact, this should be especially good news for liberals. It is achance for the U.N., and our multilateralist instincts in general, to begin regaining much-needed moral credibility.
Annan is, in effect, telling the United Nations to stop being constructivist, and start getting real. I, for one, hope it works.
