United in Principle

It is a natural human inclination to look to a higher authority when in peril. It is universal, from the beleaguered sibling seeking the aid of his parent to the Pandavas beseeching the deity Krishna in the Hindu epic the Bhagavad Gita.

In the contemporary global political system, there is no higher authority than the United Nations, whose explicit reason for existence is to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace.

A lofty goal. But one that symbolises the heights of human nobility: to better the lives of our fellows through cooperative endeavour.

The existence of the UN is necessary as a model or ideal towards which we can strive. Generally, the idea of multi-state federations is both popular and plausible: we have OPEC and ASEAN, NAFTA and AFTZ, and even a single currency on the European continent. Furthermore, the federated model is recognised as necessary: cooperation ensures survival, as it did in World War II. It lends legitimacy, too; even Bush needed a coalition of the willing to start his Iraq invasion.

To be sure, the Iraq saga was a clear example of the mucky politicization of the UN’s noble goals. Whereas the body initially decried the US’ intent to invade, it was made eventually to come around when Bush proceeded with his plan. A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. Nevertheless, many critics have stressed the UN’s uselessness in the face of disappointments such as its failure to implement resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, and to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur.

These failures, it is argued, derive from the nature of the UN’s structure, which, due in part to its size, means that its resolutions are more suggestive than prescriptive: it is up to the member-states to follow through on the resolutions. Regardless, the fact remains that we, all humans, cooperated to forge an image of a unified society; the UN is an amazing feat of human cooperation, and we cannot overlook it. That it depends on individual commitments and is sometimes ineffective is representative of human institutions and dispositions, generally. When as individuals we do not have the control or discipline to fulfil our obligations, how can we expect this body to have control over multiple states?

In a way, it never was meant to. It is not meant to be binding. Rather, it represents an ethical ideal towards which we strive, and upon which we agree. It works like the honour system, relying on the hope that we do not succumb to our caprices, that we are not ‘swayed by the whims and gusts of mortal passion’, to paraphrase a former President of the League of Nations, Aga Khan III. But that too is an ideal towards which we aspire and which we hope someday to realise, and our missteps on the journey are expected, and accepted. The fact of our striving, though, is our nobility. It is one of our twin natures as humans to strive perpetually towards goodness, towards the betterment of ourselves and our fellows. This internal obsession is mirrored by the society we created through the institutions of liberal democracy – which seek to ensure the freedom of both body and mind – itself manifested macrocosmically by a global body such as the UN.

It is a symbol of our unity, of our common desire for better things. Imagine a world without this sort of ethical watchdog; we would have multiple entities running roughshod over whomever they could, with no overarching principles ensuring the rights of humans. It is the sort of world conjured by the statements of one-time US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton: ‘There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.’

Vae victis, woe to the conquered.

A central ideal of the UN is to prevent the tyranny of the strong over the weak. It is a liberal ideal that might cannot make right, unlike in the classic example of competing theories of international relations, the Athenian invasion of Melos in the fifth century BCE, validated by the Athenian formula: ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’. It is precisely this sort of conviction that the UN was created to combat.

As a symbol of good, of responsibility to humankind, the UN is necessary. To be sure, it requires reform (such as the massive programme initiated by Kofi Annan in 2005); but it nevertheless represents the quest towards a society of cooperative and converging civilisations, the sort of world envisioned by its founders in 1941, who wrote: ‘the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security; it is our intention to work together, and with other free peoples, both in war and peace, to this end.’

http://www.stockthewarehouse.org/flashpoint-world-affairs/flashpoint/united-in-principle.html