The ongoing 64th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York has been, as now customary, rich on theater, but rather thin on substance, playing into the hand of the critics of the UN as an institution, and turning up the volume on such inane suggestions as the abolishment of the UN and the establishment of something like a United Democratic Nations, which is apparently envisaged as a US-sponsored club of Western-style democracies plus all nations on good terms with the US (even if one is unsavory and grotesquely undemocratic, who would want to exclude a "friend" who will be voting on your side, when only the ballot numbers matter?)
In other words, the idea tossed around Washington these days is to create a mutual admiration society with very little influence on or relevance to what is going on out there in the real world. For, needless to say, the idea of ostracizing all unpleasant characters from my world club is not only pathetically impractical, but it also makes the world a much more dangerous place to live in. UN membership is not a reward for good behavior, but a sober recognition of the state of world affairs.
This comment is meant to be serious, and therefore, I shall say no more about the silly alternatives to the UN. Having worked as a UN official in my earlier career, I have more important things to say about the UN and about other International Organizations, none of which latter, mind you, has been set to upstage the UN.
There are quite a few international organizations around the world today, all of which either were created or are currently maintained for the purpose of mutual convenience of its members. The old British Empire was fairly successfully converted into a post-imperial British Commonwealth (although its effectiveness is somewhat diluted these days, as a result of the world’s over-saturation with other organizations, designed for similar purposes). On the other hand, De Gaulle’s famous effort to convert the old French Empire into an analogous international body, La Communauté, did not quite get off the ground, undermined by strong centrifugal forces of local nationalism. Now, why were the British successful, where the French failed? In my view, the French being the predominant power in their proposed Communauté, the others saw this as a threat to their own sovereignty, whereas the British Commonwealth of Nations included such powerhouses as Canada and Australia, not to mention the emerging (nuclear) giants India and Pakistan and others, and with such balanced distribution of power, there was no threat that a single nation would be able to dictate its imperialistic rules to the fifty-three others.
There is little to say about such regional international organizations as the Arab League, ASEAN, African Union (formerly OAU) and OAS, except that their intended design to serve as regional meeting venues has been proven useful and in the case of OAS has resisted domination by the United States to the point where the American giant has found itself virtually ostracized by the Latin American community of nations.
There is a bit more than meets the eye in other such regional conglomerates, like the SCO, co-dominated by Russia and China, or the League of the Caspian Basin States, dominated by Russia, and several others, all made conspicuous by the absence of the United States in them, and all implicitly designed to provide a counterbalance to America’s imperial ambitions.
The CIS organization loosely binding twelve (currently de facto eleven) out of fifteen former Soviet Republics used to be and in some minds may still remain a portkey (to use J. K. Rowling’s clever invention) to the former Soviet glory. I do not think, however, that the CIS corresponds in any way to Russia’s present-day ambitions, and, in a way, may even be a hindrance to them, but it does offer a certain technical convenience to its members, and for such purely technical reasons will continue to subsist, although it has little chance of potential expansion, due to the restrictive qualities of its charter.
A recent attempt to form a new regional organization (of the Mediterranean States), promoted by France, has become more of a joke, thanks to the German umbrage at being excluded. Now that Germany, a non-Mediterranean state, is finally in, the organization becomes rather awkward, and even if it has a future of its own, it will never amount to much, because its raison d’être is now grotesquely obfuscated.
Now, where does the EU come into the picture? In its formal organization, it is currently the closest thing to approximate the old futile idea of a “world government,” and a close study of its history and functioning in this twenty-first century reveals why the idea was so appealing to so many, but also, what is terminally wrong with it. There is so much internal animosity within the European Union now, ironically, directed in most part from the established great European nations toward the small sneaky rascals of Eastern Europe, such as Poland, whose double-dealing on the side, with their bilateral ties to the United States, defeats the purpose of the Union’s creation as an independent world power, in the first place. It is my expectation that in a rather short “long run” the EU will be facing a serious structural crisis, whose outcome is still hard to predict, but among the alternative solutions are expulsions of undesirable members, angry cancellations of membership on the part of the members in good standing and finally, a radical revision of the EU Charter. I do not think however that a complete dissolution of the European Union will ever be in the cards, as it is a very useful organization, and the only one to provide Europe with a clear road map to full independence from NATO and the United States. Thus, for as long as the threat of an American domination of Western Europe remains, the nations of Europe will be willing to allow the EU Government to dictate some of the rules, by which they have temporarily agreed to live, and even accept a certain level of German economic and political domination within the EU, which has by now become an obvious reality.
And finally, the so much maligned by some, yet so much praised by others, the United Nations is to me the most excellent organization of all, considering that its inclusion of practically all independent world nations guarantees to each a full representation, both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council (on the rotating basis), while no single superpower is able to dominate it. The never-ending griping about the UN coming from the United States is caused by its incapacity to impose its will on the UN, but the constant calls to “kick the UN out of the USA” are patently silly and extremely harmful to the American interest, as the United Nations has the highest value in the eyes of the world’s smaller nations, and all efforts to diminish its worldwide prestige and even effectiveness in solving a variety of international problems (granted, quite limited) are viewed by all of them as a personal affront. (Having served with the UN Secretariat, I very well and personally know what I am talking about!)
Having always admired the Constitution of the United States of America as a lofty example of idealistic, yet practicable writing, I am here posting a few excerpts from the Preamble of the United Nations Charter written undoubtedly under the influence of the former document, and expressing a similar idealism with no less fervor:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and…
To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small (here is the projection of Hobbes’s homo sapiens beyond the nation-state Commonwealth to the whole community of world nations, which I have previously noted already!), and…
To establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and…
To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, and…
To practice tolerance and live together in peace and security, and…
To ensure, by the acceptance of principles and institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and…
To employ the international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims…
In other words, the United Nations Charter is an admirable example of Western-style writing, reflecting the best democratic values, and the task of Western Democracies is to appeal to the UN Charter's authority in bringing the United Nations into harmony with its own principal document, rather than to trash the UN, thus rendering the UN Charter impotent and irrelevant.
My last comment in this entry concerns the establishment of a world government. In some of my earlier writings, I have referred to this idea as futile, and I obviously stand by my verdict. There is no way that the centrifugal forces of world nationalism would ever allow a central world government to set the rules of the “common game.” The big nations will not allow the small ones to use their superior number to gain the upper hand, and conversely, the small nations will not allow the big nations to use their overwhelming economic, political and military power to establish a numerical minority rule over the disadvantaged, yet ever proud majority.
But the idea of world government does not lose its limited attraction and even certain practical worth just because of its general impracticability. And to ensure that some limited benefits can still be gained from this idea, there is no other international organization in existence, or even in the minds of the best wishful thinkers, better equipped for this purpose than the old, “incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,” United Nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment