Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
You can't spell unproductive without the letters "U" and "N"...

I'm one of those guys that the conspiracy theorists love to hate.
I not only believe that we need stronger global governance mechanisms, I believe that the reinvention of our global governance system is one of the great shared missions of the world for the century ahead. Whether it is strengthening institutions that regulate trade or climate, finance or proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or whether it is creating multilateral enforcement mechanisms with real teeth, the international system of nation states and very weak multilateral mechanisms we currently have is showing its age and is simply not up to satisfying the obligations of the social contract in the global era. In the eyes of the conspiracy maniacs ... weakened by too much time staring at anti-Bilderberg, anti-Davos, anti-World Jewish Conspiracy Web sites ... this makes me a world government guy and a threat to the natural order. (Which apparently is manifested in a libertarian fantasy land of white guys living in shacks and RVs far from the influence of any cultural tradition but their own. The notion of one nation under Toby Keith seems a little dubious to me, but then again, most of these guys think people like me would best serve as hood ornaments.)
Having said that, watching the UN continue its kabuki theater concerning North Korea makes me want to shut the place down, convert it to condos and remit the funds to the former member states. Even in a down New York real estate market it is almost certain to be a better return on investment for the dollars poured into that white elephant on the East River than "outcomes" like the proposed sanctions on Pyongyang. This is particularly tragic since containing and ultimately eliminating the threats posed by states like North Korea and other proliferators seems to me a vital role for the UN or at least for some international mechanism. But you can't stand up to the bad guy without a spine and the UN has been an invertebrate by design since it first crawled out of San Francisco Bay in April 1945. No one wanted anything like a strong world governance structure back then and so they built a talking shop that makes most freshman philosophy seminars look like decisive drivers of global change. Basically the organization was designed along the lines of the conflict resolution sessions my daughters' elementary school used to use when students got into a fight. The combatants would be sat down in a room, asked to explain the problem, and then told to apologize and make up or else. Of course the "or else" was the equivalent of the great parental technique of counting to three, you didn't know what might happen once you got to the point of no return but you were sure it was bad.
To my eldest daughter's credit at one point she got into a fight with a budding bitchlet from the grade ahead of her and when asked to say they were friends, she refused. She sensed that there would be no repercussions. Who knew that my adorable little cupcake and Kim Jong-Il would have that much in common.
He must be sitting there with his 26 year-old son, Kim Jong-Un, his recently anointed successor, in their badly paneled rumpus room full of tapes of old American movies playing their favorite video game (Grand Theft Plutonium) and cackling at the wimps on Manhattan Upper East Side. Seriously, I can hardly understand how in a city in which every cab driver is prepared to get all up in your grille about the most casual comment, these UN folks can manage to negotiate the basics of daily life. It takes more gumption than they have ever displayed to get a waiter to bring you a menu at most Manhattan coffee shops. (I've seen "Gossip Girl." I know how that part of town works. Blair Waldorf would have Ban Ki Moon braiding her hair and carrying her books to school within seconds of their first meeting.)
In essence, the new tough stand of the UN, orchestrated by the United States, has two parts. In the first, we essentially reiterate what we've said in the past about interdicting shipments of weapons materials. But this time, folks, we say it with feeling. There is no commitment by anyone to actually stop or inspect North Korean ships and there is no UN mechanism obligating or even sanctioning the use of force. We also plan to cut off financing options for the starving country ... except those that pertain to humanitarian or development needs. Of course, money is fungible and the government has shown a real willingness to spend on arms in the past while letting its people eat grass, so why we think this tactic won't just produce more humanitarian and development needs ... which in turn will be met ... is beyond me.
In all the articles on these developments, the usual suspects at think tanks and in the diplomatic community say all this matters because this time the Russians and the Chinese are really pissed off. Yes, maybe. But apparently not pissed off enough to actually collaborate in the production of anything that might actually change North Korean behavior. (Their approach, written on the package every North Korean bomb comes seems to have been lifted from a shampoo bottle: Threaten...negotiate/buy time for program development...win aid packages...repeat as necessary.) How was it all described by that UN expert from Stratford-on-Avon? "A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (They didn't call it the Globe Theater for nothing.)
Oh yeah, by the way, I'm still in India. I'm writing this while periodically looking up to watch the small fishing boats come into the Back Bay from the Arabian Sea. Great people, great meetings, great food and yes, if you must ask, I do keep my mouth closed in the shower to avoid becoming the host to any local bacteria (with whom I have had bad experiences in the past.)
Also, for the record, on the broader point of this blog, despite my being a very big fan of this wonderful country and a big supporter of it having a much bigger role on the international stage and in America's foreign policy priorities, I don't like the nuke deal we cut with them either. I've said it before and I will say it again, the world's complacency on proliferation will produce one or more of the great tragedies of the century ahead. (As in the North Korea case, the international community has developed and seems to be sticking to a three-speed plan on proliferation these days: cooperate with proliferators, cut them a lot slack or cut them a little slack. Just in case you wanted to know what was responsible for that ticking sound you hear...)
PHILIPPE LOPEZ/AFP/Getty Images







The UN basically does two
The UN basically does two things well:
1. It's a discussion forum in which almost every sovereign state can participate (which is a change from the past, where weak countries could just be excluded from any negotiations with the stronger states) to shape a kind of "world opinion" to some extent.
2. It's a "clearinghouse" of sorts for humanitarian efforts and programs like the IPCC, such as various food aid programs, that would almost certainly get snarled in issues of national political interference and accusations of espionage and infiltration were the UN Aegis not there. Think, for example, of what the Gaza Food Aid program would be like without the UN.
Other than that, plus some various less-than-solid peacekeeping efforts, it's basically worthless. Not surprising when you consider that it's a contradictory organization (it proposes universal rights and responsibilities while maintaining absolute state sovereignty).
I've said it before and I
I've said it before and I will say it again, the world's complacency on proliferation will produce one or more of the great tragedies of the century ahead.
Yes, but very likely it will be only one great tragedy.
After the first one everybody will wake up and do whatever it takes to prevent a second one. "Whatever it takes" includes disarmament for the USA, russia, china, etc.
Nuclear strategies have always had a strong air of unreality. They are all based on the idea that we can get a lot of what we want while avoiding any actual nuclear war. Once the whole world sees what an actual nuclear war is like and that it can actually happen, none of us will want any part of it.
U.N. Reform
No one doubts that the U.N. is in serious need of reform, including the nations that are the very reasons the U.N. does need reform - the five veto holding Permanent Members of the U.N. Security Council, which also happen to be the obstacles to reform.
Less than the security council
The whole structure of the UN is invalid. How can you have a one country one vote system where some countries represent billions of people and some thousands and some countries tiny GNPs and others enormous GNPs? There is also no basis for a democracy where there is so little democracy within the member nations!
It is a place where small countries can pretend to be players in the global stage and can join together to be obstructions to either peace or development. That's it!
UN - waste of time and money
It has failed in every mission it set out to do. It has no proper vission and is run by bunch of no hopers with zero experience of real life. The World would be a better place if the UN didnt exist.
See how badly it has failed in Sri Lanka. The UN had to leak casuality figures so as not to damage relations with a dictatorship style democracy. It sends Vijay Nambir to broker ceasefire between the two warring parties when Vijay's brother is a paid consultant to Sri Lankan government since 2002. UN is currently funding interment camps in Sri Lanka for displaced people where only last week 13,000 people disappeared and UN had no power to question this.
One way to reform UN is to make it and the people in it as transparent as can be.
Please, no condos
The UN was created to avoid wars, especially among great powers. Judged by this standard it has worked just fine. If the UN executive body does not want to do more in regard with North Korea, and then no one unilaterally intervenes anyway, that is money well spent. It is true that sometimes it has been unproductive stopping wars to occur. But that was Iraq, not Korea. So reform, yes, more power, sure, but no condos please. The US real estate market is more frightful than Pyongyang.
Uh....you count Iraq, but not
Uh....C.R. Grey, you count Iraq, but not Chinese and US (and other Allied troops) fighting during the Korean War?
I don't think I get your point
I don't think I get your point, but lets see.
When the UN was just the US (and other allied troops) it could not avoid wars like Korea in 1950. Since Beijing is in the UNSC the region has been more stable.
It can be frustraiting for the US to be unable to do whatever it thinks is fit, having to convince China and Russia(Palau is not enough company)but this is hardly a reason to tear down the UN.
In fact -and here I think is the problem- Rothkopf evaluates the UN as if it were an american instrument of foreign policy. He does not say that the lack of cooperation is a reason for Washington to get out of the organization. He implies that it should be dismantled altogether.
I don't understand this comment......
The Korean war was fought WITH the UN's backing.... It's one of the obvious examples of the UN being able to actually utilize significant force when necessary (and with the US as a core).
If your point was that the UN should have stopped fighting between China and the US, you have to remember that the PRC wasn't part of the United Nations at that time--its seat was held by the nationalists in Taipei.
You are right
Korea 1950 is a good example of the UN using force. It is also a good example of the limits of what you can and cannot acomplish by using force.
But anyhow, I take that you disagree with 'making condos' out of the UN. That was really the point in debate.
Eating Grass
Eating grass is what they do now. In 1995, they resorted to cannibalism, specifically eating the children.
Easy target, wrong target
How would the new condos make for "the reinvention of our global governance system"? The problem is not the lack of "multilateral enforcement mechanisms with real teeth" but occasionely the will to bite. How would the suppression of the UN change this? A substitute that would exclude China and Russia would not qualify for a multilateral global governance system. There's some contradictions in there, isn't it ?
I agree that we need to strengthen the current mechanism. Starting from scratch is probably the less effective strategy. Proving that you take multilateral cooperation seriously, accept unsatsifactory compromises for a start to prove you mean business and are not looking only for self-serving multilateral cover and/or burden sharing will take time. Some trust was broken that will not be repaired, even if you claim you pressed some "reset" button and are not the one you used to be, since elections occured. But such a patient strategy may work. Unless constituencies and experts ask for quick deliverables and impose a shift in strategy, that will bring us back to a short view foreign policy.
You misunderstand what the UN is
The UN was never meant to be a global government; and thank God for that. At this point in history, trying to force a worldwide government down people's throats would result in the next great war. The War on Terror is more than enough proof of the danger of nations going where they are not wanted.
While the UN does help countless individual people every year with the numerous humanitarian programs that it runs, the organization's real purpose and accomplishment is achieved merely in its existence, not its actions. The UN's most vital function is to work as a generally accepted diplomacy machine. Through the UN, all nations of the world have an institution that lays out the blueprint of the global system, and provides a ready mechanism through which nations can be heard. In other words, in a very large way, the United Nations establishes the legitimacy of the international system.
The UN functions very much like the Concert of Europe did after the fall of Napoleon - setting the standard for diplomacy in the international system. The Concert of Europe resulted in a period of eighty years where Europe experienced only a few limited wars while previously, constant and large scale conflict was the norm for the continent. Similarly, since the inception of UN, the world has seen numerous small and mid-sized conflicts; but nothing on the level of World War II.
I believe that the UN needs some adjustments to bring it up to speed with a world that has changed significantly since 1947. However, disbanding the UN entirely would result in many nations rapidly disengaging and rebelling against the current world order. World War III would not be far away after that.
India's objection to the NPT
I think India, Pakistan and Isreal are the 3 countries that havent signed the NPT.
Israel has not signed because it wants to keep its nuclear weapons open due to its paranoid world-view. Pakistan has not signed beacuse its reason-for-being India hasnt signed.
Why has India not signed?
India has objections to the biased nature of the NPT.The NPT is just another dressed up international treaty trying to demonstrate that might is right.
I quote from another website:
"India’s objection is that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967. But the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid."
Otherwise, what is the validity of this distinction? What is the sanctity of the year 1967?
Can somebody enlighten Indians what is the reason USA, UK, Russia, France and China can possess nuclear weapons but India cannot?
These countries with their nuclear weaponry, can and do pose an existential threat to the world, but why cant India defend herself from these countries should its differences with them, if ever, reach that point of no return?
Anil K
The John Birch Society is back
Typical Right Wing rant. Going back to the John Birch Society.
On Monday’s, Wednesday’s and Fridays, Right Wingers scream because the UN is not powerful enough to enforce edicts on unwilling states.
On Tuesday’s, Thursday’s and Saturday’s, Right Wingers scream because the UN is “too powerful” (the Black helicopter crowd”).
On Sundays right Wingers are too busy declaring that “God is a Republican” to say anything about the UN.
What do they want?
The UN was intentionally designed to not be able to enforce its mandate against states that were above a certain size, since that would mean giving the UN a formal, standing Army of a considerable size (such as the one the US used to invade and occupy Iraq). Is that what the Right Wingers want?
Of course not.
What Right Wingers hate is that the UN seeks to open international dialog, with greater or lesser degrees of success. And, since we all know, that Right Wingers want nothing but war: to feed their hate machine, any international conversation is verboten.
It’s really about fanatical xenophobia and hate: Staples of American Conservatives that is the focus of their hatred of the UN. Thant and the fact that an ideology that once was confined to the John Birch Society has now become a staple of the Republican Party.
Next Week: “Fluoridation of drinking water is still a Communist Plot!”
Of course the UN is impotent
Israel has been thumbing its nose at the UN even since before Res. 242. If the UN had teeth, Israel would have been out of the West Bank decades ago.
yes but
the UN put Israel IN the West Bank...how soon they forget
A norwegian pov:
The UN has been systematically broken these last 8 years, just when it was starting to function. This discussion, while interesting, is typically american: Whine whine whine and no ideas for how to strengthen it. From a US pov, I can see several strategic bonuses from a functioning aid-program channelled through the UN, complete with international pro troops. A 5 year program to strengthen the UN seems in order. I would like to see a Foreign Legion kind of elite core myself, with the various sectors setting up independent logistics that can be hooked up. As the Tsunami and Aceh showed, military precision functions in distributing aid. Imagine a Indonesian/Malaysian UN force helping out the refugee crisis in Pakistan.
Kabuki
Great piece, you make a compelling case (one that's hard to disagree with), but. . .
Please, please, please stop using the phrase "kabuki theater" - it's a plague that has infiltrated too much writing on politics and foreign policy. What does it even mean? It seems that every writer attributes a different meaning to it, none of which have to do with kabuki.
Kabuki is not mysterious, not formalistic, does not specialize in misdirection or tricks. It is pantomime - loud, overdone lines, lengthy, elaborate poses and exaggerated acting. What on earth does kabuki accomplish as a metaphor for the UN's dealing with North Korea?
Analogies and metaphors should illuminate - at best they are clearer than what is being explained. The haphazard misuse of "kabuki theater" accomplishes none of these things.
Kabuki theater
Please, please, please stop using the phrase "kabuki theater" - it's a plague that has infiltrated too much writing on politics and foreign policy. What does it even mean? It seems that every writer attributes a different meaning to it, none of which have to do with kabuki.
That's what it means! It means things that have no particular meaning in themselves, that every writer attributes a different meaning to.
Kabuki is not mysterious, not formalistic, does not specialize in misdirection or tricks. It is pantomime - loud, overdone lines, lengthy, elaborate poses and exaggerated acting. What on earth does kabuki accomplish as a metaphor for the UN's dealing with North Korea?
Isn't it appropriate that the word they choose to mean this actually does not refer to something that fits their meaning? Isn't that just perfect?
There's nothing wrong with
There's nothing wrong with the UN that moving it out of NY will not fix.
So I quite agree with you, turn the building into condos, and move the UN to a truly neutral geographical location.
"There's nothing wrong with
"There's nothing wrong with the UN that moving it out of NY will not fix.
So I quite agree with you, turn the building into condos, and move the UN to a truly neutral geographical location."
I suggest jerusalem.
If it isn't a truly neutral geographical location, let's turn it into one.
Lagos
go where your customers are...the salesman's credo