The Wrong Direction of Reform

In my last post I discussed Germany’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council and posed a few questions. Thanks to everyone for the very insightful comments. As for the first question, the UN should indeed exist in 15 years but the question is rather whether it will even function and command any respect in international politics. The reform of the UNSC is one step to increasing its legitimacy and relevance however some Kaplan-esque pessimistic realism is in order. Though reforms aren’t a magic wand that will instantly transform the UN, they will serve important purposes:

• New UNSC members will be forced to take on more responsibility around the world. I’m specifically thinking of Germany and Japan who are reluctant due to their pacifist constitutions.
• It will teach pacifist democracies like Japan and Germany a more realistic view of the world through their involvement, teach them not to reject the use of force in the future and to beef up their militaries.
• It will help to reinforce and create regional hegemons such as Brazil in South America forcing other countries to head to them with their problems and thus forcing a certain degree of maturity and responsibility onto them. It will also offset China in Asia by adding democratic Japan and India to the UNSC, and mix up Europe a bit more by adding Germany to the current UK and France. Especially good if Germany gets a new government soon though that’s a short term gain.
• It creates a more active and diverse forum for world debate with increased legitimacy though not necessarily efficiency.

However, though the UN will emerge as a better forum in which to discuss geopolitical problems, the greatest flaw of the UN isn’t its structural irrelevance but rather its desire to enforce a maximum rule-set.

Empires of the past also strove to enforce a maximum of rules and thus the UN has experienced a great deal of similarly grounded resistance and will continue to. Understand that the UN is indeed important, however, only in one of its functions, namely that of being a forum. The UN as a forum for the world to come together and discuss matters of war and peace, discuss international problems and agree on solutions is a monumental achievement the history of mankind, but the UN as a law maker can never ultimately succeed because the UN lacks the power to enforce them and because no country will ever fully give up it’s sovereignty, especially with regard to national security. There’s just no way.

Individual examples of UN resolutions have indeed been successful such as the most recent resolution which provided the face-saving cover for Syria to move out of Lebanon without looking too bad. This is also a rare example because it had almost universal support. However, the vast majority of resolutions don’t and go unheeded. Resolutions like the example serve to strengthen the UN, its reputation and to provide a neutral face for US foreign policy. Yet, the current UN is a resolution factory pumping out pieces of paper faster than we can read them. Perhaps the best way to characterize this is that UN resolutions are suffering from hyperinflation.

The UN is an unparalleled achievment in human history but works best as a forum, not as a law giver. The UN already finds itself in a dangerous state of overstretch and is in danger of making the same mistake that the European Union is currently making.